- Email: [email protected]
A look at creativity in public and private schools
Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 130–137
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Thinking Skills and Creativity journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc
A look at creativity in public and private schools Roberta Eason a,1 , Duane M. Giannangelo a,∗ , Louis A. Franceschini III b a b
The University of Memphis, Instruction & Curriculum Leadership Department, 3798 Walker Avenue, Memphis, TN 38152, USA The University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy, Memphis, TN 38152, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 4 December 2008 Received in revised form 4 March 2009 Accepted 24 April 2009 Available online 3 May 2009 Keywords: Creativity Early childhood creativity Public vs. private school teachers Primary grades Creative potential
a b s t r a c t This research study investigated the perspectives of teachers on student creativity. A group of 15 teachers from public schools and 24 teachers from private schools completed an Early Childhood Creativity Rating Scale (ECCRS) on four of their students. A total of 156 students were rated on this ECCRS. The major question asked in this study was: How do teacher perspectives of student creativity differ in public and private schools, between kindergarten and grade 3, and are these perspectives influenced by teacher characteristics. Results found that private school teachers rated their students higher on creativity, third grade students were rated lowest on creativity, and teachers who perceived themselves as most creative also rated their students as most creative. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The classroom has long been a very important environment for children to develop and learn to function in society. Teachers of early childhood children are obligated to empower each child to develop to their greatest potential. Tapping into their creative skills and allowing children the freedom to explore, experiment, question, and create may foster a lifelong love for learning and enable the children to lead more enriching and creative lives. It is important for teachers to examine their perspectives in the classroom. Are they comfortable with ambiguity? Are they genuinely interested in the children’s ideas? Are they willing to let the children lead a bit more as they listen more? Most teachers have experienced moments of glorious creativity in the classroom; moments when the students are deeply engaged in their discoveries and intrinsically motivated to learn more, fully pursuing their interests. Conversely, educators are also perplexed at times when no student seems interested in the topic of the day, and learning seems to come to a complete standstill. There are days when teachers struggle to gain the attention of their students while the students wait desperately for recess and lunch time. Parents experience this dilemma about school as well, when their own children sincerely do not want to go to school; yet on other days, the children leap from the car and race into their classrooms ready for the next adventure in learning. Conscientious educators want to know what makes the difference. What is the magic combination to unlock a child’s creativity and foster a love for school and learning?
∗ Corresponding author at: Instruction and Curriculum Leadership Department, The University of Memphis, 3789 Walker Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee 38152, USA. Tel.: +1 901 678 2373; fax: +1 901 678 3077. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Eason), [email protected] (D.M. Giannangelo), [email protected] (L.A. Franceschini III). 1 6558 Westminister Place, Memphis, TN, USA. 1871-1871/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2009.04.001
R. Eason et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 130–137
131
2. Creativity in the classroom Teachers and administrators today are under tremendous pressure to have children perform well on standardized tests. As a result, teachers feel obligated to engage youngsters in monotonous drills which will in theory prepare the students for the tests. Early childhood teachers in particular have been misguided to push more and more academic drills down to the lower grades. In reality, early childhood educators are given specialized training to nurture children from birth to age eight. That includes kindergarten, first, second, and even third grade. Teachers and administrators should remember this early childhood training, and strive to foster the precious learning and creations taking place during each of these early years. Instead of testing and drilling these youngsters, teachers should be allowed to modify their curriculum for these distinctive young minds (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Early childhood students should not be seen as empty vessels to fill, but as individuals with creative potential to be nurtured. There is a great need for this generation of children to have an environment that encourages the development of creative and inventive talent (Isbel & Raines, 2003). Teachers should be encouraged to recognize and value the creativity and creative potential in every child, and to nurture this creativity in all students (Schurig, 1992). Every child needs the opportunity to be creative in a low-risk environment without external evaluation (Isenberg & Jalongo, 1993). Creativity may not always have a finished product to evaluate. Educators should learn to value the process, and place more emphasis on thinking and the way a student approaches a problem. If too much emphasis is placed upon the products children make, the creative efforts of young children may become discouraged (Isbel & Raines, 2003). The creativity of young children is most often reflected in the process of their thinking, rather than in the products they bring home (Shipley, 1993). Children should be empowered to seek out the problems they are to solve and develop their ideas further. When the children create and own the questions, they also own the answers (Behar-Horenstein, Ornstein, & Pajak, 2003). Children who are purposefully engaged in inquiries of their own invention could never be described as having short attention spans, yet this is a characteristic we hear about many students in the classroom today (Wassermann, 2000). A creative classroom should allow more time for open-ended questioning, digression from the text, and for the development of creative thought (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Jones, 1993; Wassermann, 2000). 3. Purpose of the study During the early childhood education years, teachers determine the types of activities and kinds of thinking in which the children engage. To a great extent these are guided teachers’ perspectives of their own creativity as well as their perspectives of students’ creativity. The purpose of this study was to examine the perspectives of teachers of early childhood student creativity in public and private schools. Information about each teacher’s background provided insight into how these perspectives are influenced. This study sought to answer the following questions: 1. Is there a difference in teacher perspectives of student creativity in public school and private school in grade levels kindergarten through third? 2. Is there any change in teacher perspectives on student creativity between grade levels kindergarten through third grade? 3. How are the teacher perspectives influenced by the teachers’ age, ethnicity, number of years teaching, and degrees held? 4. The participants The participants of this study consisted of 24 public school teachers and 24 private school teachers of kindergarten, first, second, and third grades. The students’ ages ranged from five to nine years old. The public schools are funded by tax revenue and administered by publicly elected government bodies. Public schools are required to admit all students and must follow state guidelines for funding, program development and curriculum. The private schools are funded through tuition, donations and private grants. Admission is selective and somewhat competitive. Because private schools are privately funded, they have more freedom in designing curriculum and instruction. Both public and private school teachers received similar training in the knowledge, skills and understanding with regard to Early Childhood Standards as mandated by the state of Tennessee. The teachers who participated were chosen by the principals of 12 schools in a large urban area. Six schools were private schools and six schools were public schools. Each teacher was asked to complete the Early Childhood Creativity Rating Scale on four of their randomly selected students in the spring semester. A total of 192 students were to be rated on the scale. Of the 48 teachers who were given the ECCRS, 9 of the public school teachers chose not to participate. This reduced the number of teachers to 39 and the number of students to 156. Of the teachers who completed the scale, 15 were from the public sector and 24 were from the private sector. There were 10 kindergarten teachers, 9 first grade teachers, 10 second grade teachers, and 10 third grade teachers. Of these 39 teachers, 31 were Caucasian, 2 were African American, and 6 preferred not to answer about their ethnicity. In the educational degrees section, 24 teachers held bachelor’s degrees, 10 held master’s degrees, 4 had a master’s plus 45 additional hours, and 1 teacher had a doctoral degree. 54% of the teachers had taught 15 years or less and 46% of the teachers had taught for over 16 years. The teachers’ ages ranged from 25 to 65. When asked to rate their own creativity, 72% of the teachers responded that they were often, very often or almost always creative in the classroom.
132
R. Eason et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 130–137
5. The instrument The instrument used for this study was the Early Childhood Creativity Rating Scale (ECCRS) developed by Kay Bennett Shanahan at The University of Tennessee. See Appendix A. The instrument consists of two sections. The first section had items about the teacher’s demographic information. It consisted of six items about grade level taught, sector, ethnicity, educational level, teaching experience, and age. The last item was a self-rating of the teacher’s creativity. The second section of the ECCRS consisted of 12 items related to student creativity. Grounded in the three-dimensional Developmental-Ecological Model of Creative Potential in Young Children (Sawyers, Moran, & Tegano, 1987), the 12 items constituting the Early Childhood Creativity Rating Scale were distilled from a larger pool of items employed in observational study of creativity in young children in which 15 classroom teachers were employed as raters. With respect to the larger pool, items exhibiting insufficient inter-rater reliability and inter-item correlations across observational tools were subsequently discarded. Those remaining were examined in light of their correlations with student performance on the Multidimensional Stimulus Fluency Measure (convergent validity) and the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (discriminant validity). A final set of 12 items were retained based on how well items simultaneously met both validity criteria. Although a formal factor analysis was not conducted on the final set of items, inspection of the inter-item correlation matrix suggested to the creator of the ECCRS that her 12 items had adequately represented the “personality” and “cognitive” dimensions of the Developmental-Ecological Model of Creative Potential in Young Children but not its third, “contextual” dimension (Bennett, 1988, pp. 36–39). Conducted by the authors of this paper, a principal components analysis of the data obtained for this study indicated the presence of two distinct factors, but varimax and oblimin rotation of the factors revealed that most of the ECCS items did not load definitively on either of the two. Hence, subsequent to computing the internal consistency reliability for the 12 ECCRS items (˛ = .95), the authors of this study chose simply to sum across all 12 items to represent the dependent variable. 6. Analysis After means were computed for each child rated on the ECCRS, a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to determine whether statistically differences in ratings were observed by grade level and sector. As shown in Table 1, this analysis revealed higher mean creativity ratings for private school children (M = 5.21, SD = 0.92) over public school children (M = 5.00, SD = 1.33), although the effect of this difference was only slight (F(1, 31) = 4.37, p = .05, d = .19). At p < .10, the analysis also suggested a difference in creativity ratings across grade levels (F(3, 31) = 2.90, p = .05) and between kindergarten (M = 5.00, SD = 1.01) and grade 3 (M = 4.70, SD = 1.11) in particular (d = 0.29). Because the grade level means suggested a general downward trend, mean student creativity scores were first plotted against student grade level (see Fig. 1) and a Spearman rank correlation subsequently computed. While this correlation was relatively modest ( = −.360, p = .024), the evidence of a downward trend in student creativity ratings proved to be both visually and statistically compelling. That such creativity ratings might also be a function of teacher background was tested by computing correlations between the student ratings and teacher demographic variables. Of the several variables examined, only the Spearman correlation between mean student creativity ratings and teacher self-assessed creativity appeared to be robust ( = .462, p = .003). 6.1. Research Question 1: Is there a difference between the teacher’s perspectives of student creativity in public and private schools? The results of this study found that private school teachers rated their students higher overall on creativity. Many factors could have contributed to this. As the surveys were distributed and gathered, the researcher observed that teachers in the public schools seemed much more burdened with paper work, record keeping, and most importantly, the safety and welfare of every student. There seemed to be so much pressure to drill skills and prepare for tests that there was little time for exploration. Everyone including the principals, the teachers, and the office staff in many of these public schools seemed to
Table 1 Summary of partial hierarchical ANOVA of grade level by sector with teachers nested within combinations of grade and sector. Source
df
SS
MS
F
p
Grade level Sector Grade level × sector Teachers (grade level × sector) Residual
3 1 3 31 117
1816.61 913.20 872.42 6477.19 24657.00
605.54 913.20 290.81 208.94 210.74
2.90* 4.37** 1.39 0.99
.05 .04 .26 .49
* **
p < .10. p < .05.
R. Eason et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 130–137
133
Fig. 1. Scatterplot of mean student creativity ratings by student grade level.
have too much to do. On the other hand the administration, teachers, and staff of each private school regarded the ECCRS as important and made it a priority to complete. The researcher observed while distributing and gathering the surveys that the organization and delegation of duties in the private sector appear to keep everyone balanced and less overburdened. One might conclude that in these schools where the teachers are less stressed, the children receive more quality and, therefore, more creative time. Communities and schools sometimes adopt certain educational philosophies that influence the way children are taught. Many researchers believe that creativity in the classroom seems to be encouraged or discouraged depending upon the educational philosophies of the teachers, schools, and families (Isbel & Raines, 2003). Many people view the idea of creativity as just playing around, not really learning. Several parents have been observed who were concerned that their child might have a “creative” teacher and not learn anything. Some parents may not participate in their child’s school, and they may be more concerned with “just the facts” of their children’s progress, not the time consuming creative process that may not bring home tangible results. Therefore, teachers may feel more pressure to produce worksheets and other monotonous paperwork in order to compute numeric progress. So many parents and teachers were taught in a formal setting where what the teacher said was unquestionable and more important than anything the students could say or think. When a school and community adopt these philosophies about education, there may be little room for creativity in the classroom. All of these factors could have influenced the results related to this first research question. 6.2. Research Question 2: Is there a difference in teacher perspectives of student creativity between kindergarten and grade 3? This question found some interesting results as well. According to the data, as the grade level increased, the creativity ranking of the students decreased. The third grade students were rated lower than the students in other grades on creativity. Bredekamp and Copple (1997) describe the early childhood curriculum as one which should provide an environment that fosters creativity, risk taking, curiosity, and individuality. When we talk about developmentally appropriate practices, we focus on teaching methods that encourage the behaviors mentioned above. Early childhood includes students from kindergarten through third grade, so it is surprising that teachers are reporting such a decrease in creativity in the third grade. Moran, Sawyers, and Tegano (1991) believe that after large amounts of formal schooling, children become cautious about expressing their ideas. They need more reassurance that they are in a risk-free environment and their thoughts will be accepted and tested, whether right or wrong. Discovery or inquiry based learning is very useful in life and should continue throughout the early childhood years and beyond. One possible reason for the disturbing downward trend of creativity could be that teachers believe that older children are bigger and more capable of monotonous seat work (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). The researcher has observed that in many schools, exploratory centers disappear after first grade. One might conclude that these teachers have forgotten to let the older students explore and play with ideas. Many teachers of older children may feel more pressure to perform and show numeric progress on countless tests. Many parents are not satisfied with their children bringing home a creative masterpiece or solving an unusual prob-
134
R. Eason et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 130–137
lem. These perspectives of teachers and parents combine to create students who know the basics but cannot solve real problems. Children who are consistently taught this way may grow up to be workers but not thinkers. When children are allowed to find their own problems, ask their own questions, and discover their own interests, they become intrinsically motivated to solve the problems, answer the questions, and create new solutions (Behar-Horenstein et al., 2003). 6.3. Research Question 3: How are the perspectives of the teachers influenced by the teachers’ age, educational background, degrees held, years of teaching experience, ethnicity, and their own level of creativity? No correlation was found between any of the demographic characteristics of these teachers except their own rating of creativity. The results indicated that the teachers who rated themselves as more creative also rated their students as more creative. The teachers who rated themselves as more creative may be more accepting of ambiguity and creative expression in the classroom. Moran et al. (1991) report that teachers play a crucial role in nurturing the creativity of students. An environment can either encourage or discourage creativity. Teachers who view themselves as more creative may be providing the very environments that foster creativity in the children in their classrooms. A teacher’s perspectives greatly influence the educational philosophies and teaching methods used in the classroom. If a teacher does not value creativity, then the classroom environment will reflect that. On the contrary, if teachers rated themselves high on the creativity scale, perhaps these teachers are more likely to encourage creativity in the children in their classrooms. 6.4. ECCRS Question 3 When all of the 12 questions on the ECCRS are examined, Question 3 and Question 11 stand out as needing further investigation. Question 3 states: Child is opinionated, outspoken, willing to talk openly and freely. In an early childhood classroom one would expect most children to have high ratings in this category. Yet, children in third grade were ranked considerably low for this question. The results from Question 3 on the ECCRS were most disturbing in that the children were rated at the end of the school year when they should have felt most comfortable in their classroom environment. Educators should look at these results and wonder why the children are not willing to talk openly. When every child is given numerous opportunities everyday to express their thoughts and stories, they feel that their opinions are important and valued (Paley, 2004). The teachers who rated these third graders may not be actively searching out these students who feel uncomfortable expressing their ideas. These teachers may be allowing the students’ voices to remain unheard and their creativity to simmer below the surface. Students should be genuinely listened to and acknowledged every day. Teachers need to be aware of their body language when listening to their students. If a student feels rushed or judged, then he or she may not feel free to express his or her opinions. 6.5. ECCRS Question 11 Question 11 on the ECCRS asked whether the student comes up with many solutions to a problem. This question was also one of the lowest ranked on the scale of creativity for third graders. Too often in the classroom teachers ask students questions that require only one answer. This type of thinking is convergent. However, the ill-structured problems we encounter in our everyday lives require a different type of thinking known as divergent thought. Creativity and adaptability of thought are required for coming up with multiple solutions to a problem (Moran et al., 1991). Teachers are constantly struggling to prepare the students for the next test and for entering the next grade, but may not be preparing them for life. Many people in the workplace have trouble thinking creatively when posed with everyday problems. Students need time and opportunity to practice thinking “out of the box” in order to develop their divergent thinking skills. Teachers may not be providing students with multiple opportunities to create and solve ill-structured problems, instead posing questions that require one quick answer, and scheduling activities that last one day. Children should be allowed to delve for extended amounts of time into untidy projects that require divergent thinking instead of rushing through neat and trim assignments that have little true meaning. Educators should wonder why Questions 3 and 11 on the ECCRS were much lower than the others, when the characteristics they describe seem to be basic ingredients for emerging creators and problem solvers. Teachers who found their students lacking these characteristics should reassess their teaching methods. The project approach is a wonderful tool for developing creative thought. Children are allowed to use multiple resources and are given ample time to explore, discover, and rediscover many solutions to a problem. Students who are allowed to be scientists rather than learn about a science fact are much more creative in their learning and problem solving skills. This type of teaching is expensive—it takes time, patience, tolerance for ambiguity and mess. However, this type of teaching is also immensely rewarding and essential. One of the most wonderful and enriching things that many teachers enjoy is creating fun projects and assignments for the students. Teachers really do have numerous opportunities to be creative—in decorating the classroom, in creating units and themes of study, and in the daily shuffling of schedules and activities that arise. There are a myriad of resources to
R. Eason et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 130–137
135
utilize when teachers are creating, including the children. If teachers stop to realize how stimulating these activities are for their brains, maybe they would be more willing to share the fun with the children. And perhaps, the creative thought could become contagious and spread throughout the classroom. 7. Conclusion Based on the data gathered in this study, it can be concluded that in the schools surveyed creativity is valued more in kindergarten than in third grade. It also appears that the private school teachers in the study value creativity more than the public school teachers in the study. And lastly, teachers who recognize creativity in themselves value creativity in the students in their classrooms more than teachers who do not see themselves as creative. Several interesting themes emerged as the responses to the 12 questions on the ECCRS were examined. The private school teachers rated their students higher on creativity overall than the public school teachers. The kindergarten, first, and second grade teachers rated their students higher on creativity overall than the third grade teachers. And the teachers who rated themselves as more creative also rated their children as more creative overall. All of these findings were important because they influence the environment and development of children who are busy growing, playing, and shaping ideas about their magical and wonderful world. The information obtained in this study suggests that the more years students spend in school, the less creative they become. This is probably due to the fact that they have fewer opportunities to be creative or use creative thinking skills as they proceed through the grades. To remedy this situation, teachers must engage youngsters in creative, constructive, student centered learning activities. The notion that these types of learning situations take too much time because there is so much material to cover to get ready for the test need to be abandoned. Most of the “getting ready for the test” type of teaching and learning rarely get beyond the knowledge or rote level and leaves no room for creativity or creative thinking. Teachers need to be given the freedom and opportunity to teach children the things they need to learn to be successful as adults. If they teach in the most effective, creative, and student centered environments, the tests will take care of themselves and the teachers may actually view themselves as being more creative. It is time to stop testing and drilling the creativity out of our youngsters!
136
R. Eason et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 130–137
Appendix A. Early Childhood Creativity Rating Scale
R. Eason et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 130–137
137
References Behar-Horenstein, L. S., Ornstein, A. C., & Pajak, E. F. (Eds.). (2003). Contemporary issues in curriculum. New York: Pearson Education, Inc. Bennett, E. K. (1988). Social validation of a creativity measure. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs. Washington: NAEYC. Isbel, R. T., & Raines, S. C. (2003). Creativity and the arts with young children. New York: Delmar Learning. Isenberg, J. P., & Jalongo, M. R. (1993). Creative expression and play in the early childhood curriculum. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Jones, H. E. (1993). The effect of direct instruction of thinking skills in elementary social studies on the development of thinking skills. Doctoral dissertation, University of Memphis. Moran, J. D., Sawyers, J. K., & Tegano, D. W. (1991). Creativity in early childhood classrooms. National Education Association of the United States. Paley, V. G. (2004). A child’s work: The importance of fantasy play. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Sawyers, J. K., Moran, J. D., III, & Tegano, D. W. (1987). A model of original thinking. In Proceedings of the college of human resources research conference Blacksburg, VA. Schurig, R. G. (1992). The effects of reflection and impulsivity on the creative abilities of children. Master’s thesis, University of Memphis. Shipley, D. (1993). Empowering children: Play-based curriculum for life long learning. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers, Inc. Wassermann, S. (2000). Serious players in the primary classroom: Empowering children through active learning experiences. New York: Teachers College Press.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Thinking Skills and Creativity journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc
A look at creativity in public and private schools Roberta Eason a,1 , Duane M. Giannangelo a,∗ , Louis A. Franceschini III b a b
The University of Memphis, Instruction & Curriculum Leadership Department, 3798 Walker Avenue, Memphis, TN 38152, USA The University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy, Memphis, TN 38152, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 4 December 2008 Received in revised form 4 March 2009 Accepted 24 April 2009 Available online 3 May 2009 Keywords: Creativity Early childhood creativity Public vs. private school teachers Primary grades Creative potential
a b s t r a c t This research study investigated the perspectives of teachers on student creativity. A group of 15 teachers from public schools and 24 teachers from private schools completed an Early Childhood Creativity Rating Scale (ECCRS) on four of their students. A total of 156 students were rated on this ECCRS. The major question asked in this study was: How do teacher perspectives of student creativity differ in public and private schools, between kindergarten and grade 3, and are these perspectives influenced by teacher characteristics. Results found that private school teachers rated their students higher on creativity, third grade students were rated lowest on creativity, and teachers who perceived themselves as most creative also rated their students as most creative. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The classroom has long been a very important environment for children to develop and learn to function in society. Teachers of early childhood children are obligated to empower each child to develop to their greatest potential. Tapping into their creative skills and allowing children the freedom to explore, experiment, question, and create may foster a lifelong love for learning and enable the children to lead more enriching and creative lives. It is important for teachers to examine their perspectives in the classroom. Are they comfortable with ambiguity? Are they genuinely interested in the children’s ideas? Are they willing to let the children lead a bit more as they listen more? Most teachers have experienced moments of glorious creativity in the classroom; moments when the students are deeply engaged in their discoveries and intrinsically motivated to learn more, fully pursuing their interests. Conversely, educators are also perplexed at times when no student seems interested in the topic of the day, and learning seems to come to a complete standstill. There are days when teachers struggle to gain the attention of their students while the students wait desperately for recess and lunch time. Parents experience this dilemma about school as well, when their own children sincerely do not want to go to school; yet on other days, the children leap from the car and race into their classrooms ready for the next adventure in learning. Conscientious educators want to know what makes the difference. What is the magic combination to unlock a child’s creativity and foster a love for school and learning?
∗ Corresponding author at: Instruction and Curriculum Leadership Department, The University of Memphis, 3789 Walker Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee 38152, USA. Tel.: +1 901 678 2373; fax: +1 901 678 3077. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Eason), [email protected] (D.M. Giannangelo), [email protected] (L.A. Franceschini III). 1 6558 Westminister Place, Memphis, TN, USA. 1871-1871/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2009.04.001
R. Eason et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 130–137
131
2. Creativity in the classroom Teachers and administrators today are under tremendous pressure to have children perform well on standardized tests. As a result, teachers feel obligated to engage youngsters in monotonous drills which will in theory prepare the students for the tests. Early childhood teachers in particular have been misguided to push more and more academic drills down to the lower grades. In reality, early childhood educators are given specialized training to nurture children from birth to age eight. That includes kindergarten, first, second, and even third grade. Teachers and administrators should remember this early childhood training, and strive to foster the precious learning and creations taking place during each of these early years. Instead of testing and drilling these youngsters, teachers should be allowed to modify their curriculum for these distinctive young minds (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Early childhood students should not be seen as empty vessels to fill, but as individuals with creative potential to be nurtured. There is a great need for this generation of children to have an environment that encourages the development of creative and inventive talent (Isbel & Raines, 2003). Teachers should be encouraged to recognize and value the creativity and creative potential in every child, and to nurture this creativity in all students (Schurig, 1992). Every child needs the opportunity to be creative in a low-risk environment without external evaluation (Isenberg & Jalongo, 1993). Creativity may not always have a finished product to evaluate. Educators should learn to value the process, and place more emphasis on thinking and the way a student approaches a problem. If too much emphasis is placed upon the products children make, the creative efforts of young children may become discouraged (Isbel & Raines, 2003). The creativity of young children is most often reflected in the process of their thinking, rather than in the products they bring home (Shipley, 1993). Children should be empowered to seek out the problems they are to solve and develop their ideas further. When the children create and own the questions, they also own the answers (Behar-Horenstein, Ornstein, & Pajak, 2003). Children who are purposefully engaged in inquiries of their own invention could never be described as having short attention spans, yet this is a characteristic we hear about many students in the classroom today (Wassermann, 2000). A creative classroom should allow more time for open-ended questioning, digression from the text, and for the development of creative thought (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Jones, 1993; Wassermann, 2000). 3. Purpose of the study During the early childhood education years, teachers determine the types of activities and kinds of thinking in which the children engage. To a great extent these are guided teachers’ perspectives of their own creativity as well as their perspectives of students’ creativity. The purpose of this study was to examine the perspectives of teachers of early childhood student creativity in public and private schools. Information about each teacher’s background provided insight into how these perspectives are influenced. This study sought to answer the following questions: 1. Is there a difference in teacher perspectives of student creativity in public school and private school in grade levels kindergarten through third? 2. Is there any change in teacher perspectives on student creativity between grade levels kindergarten through third grade? 3. How are the teacher perspectives influenced by the teachers’ age, ethnicity, number of years teaching, and degrees held? 4. The participants The participants of this study consisted of 24 public school teachers and 24 private school teachers of kindergarten, first, second, and third grades. The students’ ages ranged from five to nine years old. The public schools are funded by tax revenue and administered by publicly elected government bodies. Public schools are required to admit all students and must follow state guidelines for funding, program development and curriculum. The private schools are funded through tuition, donations and private grants. Admission is selective and somewhat competitive. Because private schools are privately funded, they have more freedom in designing curriculum and instruction. Both public and private school teachers received similar training in the knowledge, skills and understanding with regard to Early Childhood Standards as mandated by the state of Tennessee. The teachers who participated were chosen by the principals of 12 schools in a large urban area. Six schools were private schools and six schools were public schools. Each teacher was asked to complete the Early Childhood Creativity Rating Scale on four of their randomly selected students in the spring semester. A total of 192 students were to be rated on the scale. Of the 48 teachers who were given the ECCRS, 9 of the public school teachers chose not to participate. This reduced the number of teachers to 39 and the number of students to 156. Of the teachers who completed the scale, 15 were from the public sector and 24 were from the private sector. There were 10 kindergarten teachers, 9 first grade teachers, 10 second grade teachers, and 10 third grade teachers. Of these 39 teachers, 31 were Caucasian, 2 were African American, and 6 preferred not to answer about their ethnicity. In the educational degrees section, 24 teachers held bachelor’s degrees, 10 held master’s degrees, 4 had a master’s plus 45 additional hours, and 1 teacher had a doctoral degree. 54% of the teachers had taught 15 years or less and 46% of the teachers had taught for over 16 years. The teachers’ ages ranged from 25 to 65. When asked to rate their own creativity, 72% of the teachers responded that they were often, very often or almost always creative in the classroom.
132
R. Eason et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 130–137
5. The instrument The instrument used for this study was the Early Childhood Creativity Rating Scale (ECCRS) developed by Kay Bennett Shanahan at The University of Tennessee. See Appendix A. The instrument consists of two sections. The first section had items about the teacher’s demographic information. It consisted of six items about grade level taught, sector, ethnicity, educational level, teaching experience, and age. The last item was a self-rating of the teacher’s creativity. The second section of the ECCRS consisted of 12 items related to student creativity. Grounded in the three-dimensional Developmental-Ecological Model of Creative Potential in Young Children (Sawyers, Moran, & Tegano, 1987), the 12 items constituting the Early Childhood Creativity Rating Scale were distilled from a larger pool of items employed in observational study of creativity in young children in which 15 classroom teachers were employed as raters. With respect to the larger pool, items exhibiting insufficient inter-rater reliability and inter-item correlations across observational tools were subsequently discarded. Those remaining were examined in light of their correlations with student performance on the Multidimensional Stimulus Fluency Measure (convergent validity) and the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (discriminant validity). A final set of 12 items were retained based on how well items simultaneously met both validity criteria. Although a formal factor analysis was not conducted on the final set of items, inspection of the inter-item correlation matrix suggested to the creator of the ECCRS that her 12 items had adequately represented the “personality” and “cognitive” dimensions of the Developmental-Ecological Model of Creative Potential in Young Children but not its third, “contextual” dimension (Bennett, 1988, pp. 36–39). Conducted by the authors of this paper, a principal components analysis of the data obtained for this study indicated the presence of two distinct factors, but varimax and oblimin rotation of the factors revealed that most of the ECCS items did not load definitively on either of the two. Hence, subsequent to computing the internal consistency reliability for the 12 ECCRS items (˛ = .95), the authors of this study chose simply to sum across all 12 items to represent the dependent variable. 6. Analysis After means were computed for each child rated on the ECCRS, a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to determine whether statistically differences in ratings were observed by grade level and sector. As shown in Table 1, this analysis revealed higher mean creativity ratings for private school children (M = 5.21, SD = 0.92) over public school children (M = 5.00, SD = 1.33), although the effect of this difference was only slight (F(1, 31) = 4.37, p = .05, d = .19). At p < .10, the analysis also suggested a difference in creativity ratings across grade levels (F(3, 31) = 2.90, p = .05) and between kindergarten (M = 5.00, SD = 1.01) and grade 3 (M = 4.70, SD = 1.11) in particular (d = 0.29). Because the grade level means suggested a general downward trend, mean student creativity scores were first plotted against student grade level (see Fig. 1) and a Spearman rank correlation subsequently computed. While this correlation was relatively modest ( = −.360, p = .024), the evidence of a downward trend in student creativity ratings proved to be both visually and statistically compelling. That such creativity ratings might also be a function of teacher background was tested by computing correlations between the student ratings and teacher demographic variables. Of the several variables examined, only the Spearman correlation between mean student creativity ratings and teacher self-assessed creativity appeared to be robust ( = .462, p = .003). 6.1. Research Question 1: Is there a difference between the teacher’s perspectives of student creativity in public and private schools? The results of this study found that private school teachers rated their students higher overall on creativity. Many factors could have contributed to this. As the surveys were distributed and gathered, the researcher observed that teachers in the public schools seemed much more burdened with paper work, record keeping, and most importantly, the safety and welfare of every student. There seemed to be so much pressure to drill skills and prepare for tests that there was little time for exploration. Everyone including the principals, the teachers, and the office staff in many of these public schools seemed to
Table 1 Summary of partial hierarchical ANOVA of grade level by sector with teachers nested within combinations of grade and sector. Source
df
SS
MS
F
p
Grade level Sector Grade level × sector Teachers (grade level × sector) Residual
3 1 3 31 117
1816.61 913.20 872.42 6477.19 24657.00
605.54 913.20 290.81 208.94 210.74
2.90* 4.37** 1.39 0.99
.05 .04 .26 .49
* **
p < .10. p < .05.
R. Eason et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 130–137
133
Fig. 1. Scatterplot of mean student creativity ratings by student grade level.
have too much to do. On the other hand the administration, teachers, and staff of each private school regarded the ECCRS as important and made it a priority to complete. The researcher observed while distributing and gathering the surveys that the organization and delegation of duties in the private sector appear to keep everyone balanced and less overburdened. One might conclude that in these schools where the teachers are less stressed, the children receive more quality and, therefore, more creative time. Communities and schools sometimes adopt certain educational philosophies that influence the way children are taught. Many researchers believe that creativity in the classroom seems to be encouraged or discouraged depending upon the educational philosophies of the teachers, schools, and families (Isbel & Raines, 2003). Many people view the idea of creativity as just playing around, not really learning. Several parents have been observed who were concerned that their child might have a “creative” teacher and not learn anything. Some parents may not participate in their child’s school, and they may be more concerned with “just the facts” of their children’s progress, not the time consuming creative process that may not bring home tangible results. Therefore, teachers may feel more pressure to produce worksheets and other monotonous paperwork in order to compute numeric progress. So many parents and teachers were taught in a formal setting where what the teacher said was unquestionable and more important than anything the students could say or think. When a school and community adopt these philosophies about education, there may be little room for creativity in the classroom. All of these factors could have influenced the results related to this first research question. 6.2. Research Question 2: Is there a difference in teacher perspectives of student creativity between kindergarten and grade 3? This question found some interesting results as well. According to the data, as the grade level increased, the creativity ranking of the students decreased. The third grade students were rated lower than the students in other grades on creativity. Bredekamp and Copple (1997) describe the early childhood curriculum as one which should provide an environment that fosters creativity, risk taking, curiosity, and individuality. When we talk about developmentally appropriate practices, we focus on teaching methods that encourage the behaviors mentioned above. Early childhood includes students from kindergarten through third grade, so it is surprising that teachers are reporting such a decrease in creativity in the third grade. Moran, Sawyers, and Tegano (1991) believe that after large amounts of formal schooling, children become cautious about expressing their ideas. They need more reassurance that they are in a risk-free environment and their thoughts will be accepted and tested, whether right or wrong. Discovery or inquiry based learning is very useful in life and should continue throughout the early childhood years and beyond. One possible reason for the disturbing downward trend of creativity could be that teachers believe that older children are bigger and more capable of monotonous seat work (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). The researcher has observed that in many schools, exploratory centers disappear after first grade. One might conclude that these teachers have forgotten to let the older students explore and play with ideas. Many teachers of older children may feel more pressure to perform and show numeric progress on countless tests. Many parents are not satisfied with their children bringing home a creative masterpiece or solving an unusual prob-
134
R. Eason et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 130–137
lem. These perspectives of teachers and parents combine to create students who know the basics but cannot solve real problems. Children who are consistently taught this way may grow up to be workers but not thinkers. When children are allowed to find their own problems, ask their own questions, and discover their own interests, they become intrinsically motivated to solve the problems, answer the questions, and create new solutions (Behar-Horenstein et al., 2003). 6.3. Research Question 3: How are the perspectives of the teachers influenced by the teachers’ age, educational background, degrees held, years of teaching experience, ethnicity, and their own level of creativity? No correlation was found between any of the demographic characteristics of these teachers except their own rating of creativity. The results indicated that the teachers who rated themselves as more creative also rated their students as more creative. The teachers who rated themselves as more creative may be more accepting of ambiguity and creative expression in the classroom. Moran et al. (1991) report that teachers play a crucial role in nurturing the creativity of students. An environment can either encourage or discourage creativity. Teachers who view themselves as more creative may be providing the very environments that foster creativity in the children in their classrooms. A teacher’s perspectives greatly influence the educational philosophies and teaching methods used in the classroom. If a teacher does not value creativity, then the classroom environment will reflect that. On the contrary, if teachers rated themselves high on the creativity scale, perhaps these teachers are more likely to encourage creativity in the children in their classrooms. 6.4. ECCRS Question 3 When all of the 12 questions on the ECCRS are examined, Question 3 and Question 11 stand out as needing further investigation. Question 3 states: Child is opinionated, outspoken, willing to talk openly and freely. In an early childhood classroom one would expect most children to have high ratings in this category. Yet, children in third grade were ranked considerably low for this question. The results from Question 3 on the ECCRS were most disturbing in that the children were rated at the end of the school year when they should have felt most comfortable in their classroom environment. Educators should look at these results and wonder why the children are not willing to talk openly. When every child is given numerous opportunities everyday to express their thoughts and stories, they feel that their opinions are important and valued (Paley, 2004). The teachers who rated these third graders may not be actively searching out these students who feel uncomfortable expressing their ideas. These teachers may be allowing the students’ voices to remain unheard and their creativity to simmer below the surface. Students should be genuinely listened to and acknowledged every day. Teachers need to be aware of their body language when listening to their students. If a student feels rushed or judged, then he or she may not feel free to express his or her opinions. 6.5. ECCRS Question 11 Question 11 on the ECCRS asked whether the student comes up with many solutions to a problem. This question was also one of the lowest ranked on the scale of creativity for third graders. Too often in the classroom teachers ask students questions that require only one answer. This type of thinking is convergent. However, the ill-structured problems we encounter in our everyday lives require a different type of thinking known as divergent thought. Creativity and adaptability of thought are required for coming up with multiple solutions to a problem (Moran et al., 1991). Teachers are constantly struggling to prepare the students for the next test and for entering the next grade, but may not be preparing them for life. Many people in the workplace have trouble thinking creatively when posed with everyday problems. Students need time and opportunity to practice thinking “out of the box” in order to develop their divergent thinking skills. Teachers may not be providing students with multiple opportunities to create and solve ill-structured problems, instead posing questions that require one quick answer, and scheduling activities that last one day. Children should be allowed to delve for extended amounts of time into untidy projects that require divergent thinking instead of rushing through neat and trim assignments that have little true meaning. Educators should wonder why Questions 3 and 11 on the ECCRS were much lower than the others, when the characteristics they describe seem to be basic ingredients for emerging creators and problem solvers. Teachers who found their students lacking these characteristics should reassess their teaching methods. The project approach is a wonderful tool for developing creative thought. Children are allowed to use multiple resources and are given ample time to explore, discover, and rediscover many solutions to a problem. Students who are allowed to be scientists rather than learn about a science fact are much more creative in their learning and problem solving skills. This type of teaching is expensive—it takes time, patience, tolerance for ambiguity and mess. However, this type of teaching is also immensely rewarding and essential. One of the most wonderful and enriching things that many teachers enjoy is creating fun projects and assignments for the students. Teachers really do have numerous opportunities to be creative—in decorating the classroom, in creating units and themes of study, and in the daily shuffling of schedules and activities that arise. There are a myriad of resources to
R. Eason et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 130–137
135
utilize when teachers are creating, including the children. If teachers stop to realize how stimulating these activities are for their brains, maybe they would be more willing to share the fun with the children. And perhaps, the creative thought could become contagious and spread throughout the classroom. 7. Conclusion Based on the data gathered in this study, it can be concluded that in the schools surveyed creativity is valued more in kindergarten than in third grade. It also appears that the private school teachers in the study value creativity more than the public school teachers in the study. And lastly, teachers who recognize creativity in themselves value creativity in the students in their classrooms more than teachers who do not see themselves as creative. Several interesting themes emerged as the responses to the 12 questions on the ECCRS were examined. The private school teachers rated their students higher on creativity overall than the public school teachers. The kindergarten, first, and second grade teachers rated their students higher on creativity overall than the third grade teachers. And the teachers who rated themselves as more creative also rated their children as more creative overall. All of these findings were important because they influence the environment and development of children who are busy growing, playing, and shaping ideas about their magical and wonderful world. The information obtained in this study suggests that the more years students spend in school, the less creative they become. This is probably due to the fact that they have fewer opportunities to be creative or use creative thinking skills as they proceed through the grades. To remedy this situation, teachers must engage youngsters in creative, constructive, student centered learning activities. The notion that these types of learning situations take too much time because there is so much material to cover to get ready for the test need to be abandoned. Most of the “getting ready for the test” type of teaching and learning rarely get beyond the knowledge or rote level and leaves no room for creativity or creative thinking. Teachers need to be given the freedom and opportunity to teach children the things they need to learn to be successful as adults. If they teach in the most effective, creative, and student centered environments, the tests will take care of themselves and the teachers may actually view themselves as being more creative. It is time to stop testing and drilling the creativity out of our youngsters!
136
R. Eason et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 130–137
Appendix A. Early Childhood Creativity Rating Scale
R. Eason et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity 4 (2009) 130–137
137
References Behar-Horenstein, L. S., Ornstein, A. C., & Pajak, E. F. (Eds.). (2003). Contemporary issues in curriculum. New York: Pearson Education, Inc. Bennett, E. K. (1988). Social validation of a creativity measure. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs. Washington: NAEYC. Isbel, R. T., & Raines, S. C. (2003). Creativity and the arts with young children. New York: Delmar Learning. Isenberg, J. P., & Jalongo, M. R. (1993). Creative expression and play in the early childhood curriculum. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Jones, H. E. (1993). The effect of direct instruction of thinking skills in elementary social studies on the development of thinking skills. Doctoral dissertation, University of Memphis. Moran, J. D., Sawyers, J. K., & Tegano, D. W. (1991). Creativity in early childhood classrooms. National Education Association of the United States. Paley, V. G. (2004). A child’s work: The importance of fantasy play. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Sawyers, J. K., Moran, J. D., III, & Tegano, D. W. (1987). A model of original thinking. In Proceedings of the college of human resources research conference Blacksburg, VA. Schurig, R. G. (1992). The effects of reflection and impulsivity on the creative abilities of children. Master’s thesis, University of Memphis. Shipley, D. (1993). Empowering children: Play-based curriculum for life long learning. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers, Inc. Wassermann, S. (2000). Serious players in the primary classroom: Empowering children through active learning experiences. New York: Teachers College Press.