Narratives of creativity: How eight teachers on four school levels integrate creativity into teaching and learning

Accepted Manuscript Title: “Teacher stories: Eight teachers on four school levels working with creativity in teaching and learning” Author: Svanborg R. J´onsd´ottir PII: DOI: Reference:

S1871-1871(17)30027-5 http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02.008 TSC 416

To appear in:

Thinking Skills and Creativity

Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:

27-11-2015 23-1-2017 2-2-2017

Please cite this article as: & J´onsd´ottir, Svanborg R., “Teacher stories: Eight teachers on four school levels working with creativity in teaching and learning”.Thinking Skills and Creativity http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02.008 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

"Teacher stories: Eight teachers on four school levels working with creativity in teaching and learning" Svanborg R. Jónsdóttir, University of Iceland, School of Education Við Stakkahlíð 105 Reykjavík Iceland Correspondence: Svanborg R. Jónsdóttir [email protected]

1

ACTION RESEARCH

Exp erim en

isks r ing k a

TEACHER CONTROL - learner receivers

t

T

FRAMING

i bi

om

do

Fl e x

CREATIVITY TEACHER STORIES

ee

ty

li

Fr

Sta n di ng b a ck

POW

E R - CO N T R O L

PEDAGOGICAL SENSITIVITY

LEARNER CONTROL - creator - agency - possibility thinking

Highligts    

Eight teachers on four school levels acquire pedagogical sensitivity for fostering student creativity through action research Adjusting framing in the classroom towards learner agency and control Teacher stories that show experimentation, taking risks, allowing freedom, flexibility and standing back to enhance student possibility thinking Inspiring collaboration across four school levels

Abstract Modern societies prioritize creative thinking and the capacity to actualize ideas. Creativity is one of six fundamental ideals1 in the NN curricula presented by educational authorities in NN in 2011. These curricula were designed for the three first school levels -- preschool, compulsory school (6-16 years old), and upper secondary school (16-20 years old) -- with the common aim of enhancing core competencies built on the six fundamental ideals for students (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 2011). This paper describes an action research project that ran from autumn 2013 until autumn 2015. I, the author of this article describe and anlayse our work on behalf of and in collaboration with the other participants. With it, we sought to understand how we as teachers could work to enhance student creativity. Participants included eight teachers at four school levels working in a research group led by the author. Data included journals, reflective notes, teaching plans, photographs, student information and research group meetings. Bernstein’s (2000) concepts of framing and classification were used to locate teachers’ work with students. Through the research process, we became more aware of their roles in nurturing student creativity. Constraints and supportive elements of creative work were identified. The main theme that emerged was: control in learning spaces. Other connected themes were: supporting student agency, experimenting with framing, engagement and personal interpretation, challenging ingrained patterns of learners as receivers, finding balance between freedom and control, and professional development through action research. Fostering creativity turned out to be a complex endeavor, characterized by several factors that can be adjusted and influenced. Keywords: Creativity, teaching for creativity, creative learning, framing, action research Abbrevations: WIP: Working in inclusive practices (a graduate course in teacher education)

1

Translators of NN curricula use the words “fundamental pillars” in English, which we find goes against the grain of the policy, as it creates the connotation that the pillars are separated and independent; whereas in Icelandic the policy indicates that ideals or issues can be integrated and intertwined.

2

Names of the author and participants are pseudonyms for the review process; the country and language are referred to as NN

1. Introduction Acquiring knowledge is no longer the only aim of schooling. The capacity to utilize knowledge and to create new knowledge requires creativity. This is now one of the important skills that schools are meant to cultivate and increase in students. Since 2011, creativity is one of the six major ideals (fundamental pillars) in NN official curricula, along with democracy and human rights, sustainability, health and welfare, equality, and literacy. The major change in the 2011 curricula of three school levels (early childhood, compulsory, and upper secondary) was to aim for key competencies built on the major ideals using school subjects as a route towards attaining those aims, rather than treating subjects as aims in themselves. To help teachers and administrators adjust to the new policy, the Ministry of Education published six individual booklets that explained each of the six fundamental ideals thoroughly and gave examples of how they might emerge in practice. One of those pamphlets was the Creativity Pamphlet (J.I.et al., 2012, to be inserted later) issued by the Ministry of Education and Culture in NN published by the ministry and the National Centre for Educational Materials. Teachers in NN are now finding ways to meet the aims of the 2011 curricula by focusing on competencies and skills built on the six fundamental ideals. This paper describes an action research project involving eight teachers at four school levels focusing on creativity in their own teaching. We aimed to identify and analyze creativity in teaching and learning, as well as to find ways to cultivate and nurture creative work in different subjects and at different levels of school. By locating creativity in schoolwork, and recognizing the ways teachers support and foster their students’ creative capacities, we hope to inspire discussion on this elusive concept.

2. Perspectives Views on creativity have developed from it being considered something divine that belonged to a few geniuses into seeing creativity as a universal part of human experience. The earliest Western conception of creativity is found in the biblical story of the creation, which generated the idea of the artisan doing God’s work on Earth (Albert & Runco, 2002). The first systematic study of creativity, undertaken by Francis Galton by the end of the nineteenth century, focused on genius (Craft, 2001; Albert & Runco, 2002). Hundreds of other studies followed suit until the 1920s, when the study of creativity was subsumed into the psychological investigation of intelligence (Craft, 2001). The majority of studies on creativity in psychology were conducted in the 1950s within four major traditions: psychoanalytic, cognitive, behaviourist and humanistic (Craft, 2001; Ryhammar & Brolin,

3

1999). Personality research generated enlightening knowledge but have been criticized for being too narrow, as they still focused on “geniuses“ and produced contradictory and superficial regarding findings about the qualities of creative people (Craft, 2001). The push to prioritise creativity in education emerged in the latter part of the 20th century (Craft, 2001; Amabile, 1998). Results of programs to stimulate creativity have not been conclusive and transfer of enhanced creativity has been limited or nonexistent (Ryhammar & Brolin, 1999). The lack of systematic, controlled evaluation of such programmes, along with the divergent theories underpinning their structure, make it difficult to judge their efficacy and suitability (Ryhammar & Brolin, 1999). Research in creativity in the 1980s and 1990s used a social-psychological framework to take into account of the role of social structures in fostering creativity in individuals (Rhyammar & Brolin, 1999, Jeffrey & Craft, 2006). Views that differentiate between H-creativity, or historical creativity (creativity that is important to the world), and P-creativity, or psychological creativity (creativity important to the person), opened a broader understanding of creativity that is relevant in education (Boden, 2005). The National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE) (1999) in England presented a democratic definition of creativity in their report All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education. They argued that all people are capable of creative achievement given the right conditions and acquisition of relevant knowledge and skills. In a similar vein, ordinary creativity, or „little c“ creativity, is seen as the creativity of the ordinary person and recognises that everyone can be creative (Ripple, 1989; Craft, 2001; 2006). Although creativity is difficult to define, it has been described in relatively simple terms that can be used as a basis for understanding. Sternberg & Lubart (2002) and Sternberg, Pretz & Kaufman (2003) define creativity as the ability to flexibly produce work that is novel, high in quality, and useful. Craft (2000) suggests that the core of creativity is possibility thinking and that creating requires insight. She also claims that little-c creativity is a capacity we all have, and it guides the choices we make every day (Craft, 2000). It allows us to identify and choose options for our own lives, becoming our own creators (Craft, 2000). Teaching for creativity and teaching creatively are not necessarily the same. Teaching creatively is about “using imaginative approaches to make learning more interesting and effective” (NACCCE, 1999, p. 89). Teaching for creativty is defined as using forms of teaching focused on developing learners‘ own creative thinking and behaviour (NACCCE, 1999; Jeffrey & Craft, 2004). Jeffrey and Craft (2004) argue that teaching creatively and teaching for creativity must be intertwined in order for creative learning to be achieved. To foster learner agency and creativity, teachers need to know when to step back and organise an enabling context that comprises flexible time and space in order to nurture the development of possibility thinking (Cremin, Burnard, & Craft, 2006). Being creative requires agency, defined as the control individuals have of their actions and lives. Creativity involves individuals having agency over their environment and being able to ‘actualise’ the choices in their lives (Craft, 2000, p. 21). Applying creativity in learning is about enacting ‘agency’, the ability and capacity to act and work in order to produce ideas or products that are original and innovative in their context (Craft, McConnon & Paige-

4

Smith, 2012; Jeffrey, 2005). Pedagogy that fosters creativity allows considerable student freedom: freedom to take risks, make choices, and autonomously determine what they want to do and how (Beghetto, Kaufman & Baer, 2015; Cremin, Burnard & Craft, 2006; Craft, McConnon & Paige-Smith, 2012). Such pedagogy requires teachers to be sensitive to when they should stand back and allow students to create and follow their own learning agendas and to choose wisely when to step in to provoke, clarify, support, extend or challenge (Cremin, Burnard & Craft, 2006) in order to support learner creativity. Giving learners control over their learning can often be a challenge for teachers. Freedom to support creative learning and the agency it can offer learners is often restricted by external parameters from curriculum and required assessments (Craft, Cremin, Burnard & Chappell, 2007). Predetermined learning outcomes tend to restrict learners‘ freedom to be creative and explore and create their own meanings (Waghid, 2003). It is the role of the teacher to find the balance between freedom and structure that optimizes the potential for creativity within different contexts (Craft et al., 2007; Jónsdóttir & Macdonald, 2013). Some teachers find it difficult to exercise flexibility and prefer more structured and controlling approaches. Teacher attitudes and professional theories are keys to success in teaching creativity and creative learning (Gunnarsdóttir, 2001; Jónsdóttir, 2007; 2011). Teachers adopting constructivist instruction often fear losing control in the classroom as they give learners more power over their activities (Bell & Gilbert, 1994; Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Butzin, 2004; Cushman, 1997; Ribeiro & Mizukami, 2005). This fear of losing control has been called „chaos angst,“ as it is usually subconscious and unarticulated (Fischer & Madsen, 2001; Jónsdóttir, 2011). Identifying the elements of control and power in learning could help teachers balance structure and freedom so that their teaching supports learner agency and creative engagement. In this research we took into consideration both freedom, which can lead to chaos; and structure, which can become too rigid and forestall creativity. We attempt to reconcile freedom and structure without losing the benefits of either.

Classification and framing: identifying power and control To help us understand how our teaching enhanced student creativity, and in particular, the ways in which we granted our students freedom and support to be creative, we used some concepts in Basil Bernstein´s (2000) theories to analyse our stories. Bernstein’s (2000) concepts of classification and framing can help to explain how power and power relations take shape in relationships. Bernstein (2000) uses classification to categorise the formation of social spaces, such as school subjects, and roles, such as teachers, learners, home, and school. Power is embedded within a defined category, strongly or weakly classified. Control establishes valid forms of communication between categories (Bernstein, 2000). Bernstein uses “framing“ to refer to where control is located (Bernstein, 2000). In strong framing, the transmitter has explicit control; in weak framing, the acquirer has more apparent control (Bernstein, 2000). Strong framing indicates that control is located in a category that has power -- for example, a teacher or a school subject (Jónsdóttir &

5

Macdonald, 2013; Macdonald & Jóhannsdóttir, 2006). Weak framing indicates that control is shared between categories (Jónsdóttir & Macdonald, 2013; Macdonald & Jóhannsdóttir, 2006). The classification of the teacher role tends to be weaker when framing is weaker, and in weak framing teacher-student boundaries become blurred. We wanted to see how these emerged in our teaching and whether and how they influenced the opportunities we offered our students to be creative. Jónsdóttir (2011) shows that issues concerning freedom and structure are influential in supporting creativity in lessons. We examined how these themes emerged in communication between teachers and learners in our own teaching. In addition to looking generally for anything related to creativity in our teaching, we (the eight teachers in the research group) looked for power (classification of roles) and control (framing of communication) in the classroom and learning spaces using Bernstein’s (2000) concepts. A learning space could be location of work (formal or informal, in the classroom, in the library, in the corridor or outside school, at home, in virtual spaces, or out in nature), and also the more elusive space of the timeframe, or emotional space (related to roles and communication) (Oblinger, 2006). Although we did focus on notions of control and agency in our action research, we were mainly attentive to creativity and how it emerged according to our understanding in our teaching and in the learning opportunities we offered our students. Therefore, the main question we asked ourselves and sought to answer in this research was: How does creativity emerge in my teaching and what kind of opportunities do my students get to be creative?

3. Methods and participants This collaborative action research was conducted by a team of practitioners on four school levels. Collaborative action research consists of cooperation between a group of teachers working towards a common goal in their teaching. Each of us wanted to support student creative learning, improve our own practice, and contribute to the development of our own profession and understanding of fostering creativity in learners. By doing collaborative action research, we wanted to promote collegial relationships among practitioners and foster professionalism in teaching (Sagor, 2010). In this research, we use an action research approach by analysing existing practice and identifying elements for change (McNiff, Lomax & Whitehead, 2003). Action research in education responds to Stenhouse‘s (1975) declaration that “it is not enough that teachers’ work should be studied: they need to study it themselves” (p.143). The focus in action research is to observe one‘s own teaching practice from the inside and to tell explanatory stories it (Whitehead, 2006). It allows teachers to analyse and solve problems in practice, but also to understand their practice better (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). Action research gives teachers the opportunity to control the development of the research and requires them to be active participants in the process (Guðjónsdóttir, 2004; Guðjónsson, 2008; McNiff, 2002). Teachers who research their own practice can become stronger professionals and can better

6

justify their actions. In encouraging teachers to reflect on their past, present and future practice, action research offers educators the opportunity to convert frustrations into solvable problems (Schmuck, 2006). The process can empower teachers by expanding their professional knowledge and help them better utilize the resources available to them (Kjartansdóttir, 2010; Marshall & Reason, 2007). In this research eight participating teachers at four levels formed a research group at the initiation of the author. Once we identified creativity as the main issue we wanted to focus on, we investigated our own ways of working throug individual and collaborative reflection and made decisions about what we wanted to change. Thus, the unit of analysis was each teacher‘s teaching; our action research involved constantly reviewing our work, reflecting on our data, and adjusting towards what we wanted to achieve. Participants Participants were purposely chosen to represent four levels: pre-school, compulsory school (6-16 years old), upper-secondary school (usually from 16-20 years old) and university (~20). The eight teachers who took part in the research all teach traditional subjects. All teachers have taught creatively in the past, and wished to strengthen this aspect of their teaching practice. Sally is a pre-school teacher who works in a school that draws on the Reggio Emilia philosophy. After one year, Sally had to leave the study due to personal reasons. Hanna teaches NN and Elsa teachers mathematics, both in the 8th, 9th and 10th grades. Sean and Jean teach NN in a newly established, upper-secondary school that emphasizes a studentcentered approach. Three teachers at the School of Education at the University of NN also participated: Tina, an NN teacher; Erin, who teaches action research; and Susanna, who teaches various subjects. Susanna (the lead author) led the research group, and Erin acted both as an advisor and active participant in the reflective meetings of the group. Data Participants were asked to keep journals and reflective notes about their teaching. We also recorded two-hour meetings every 1-2 months in which the research group discussed what was going on in our work with students, focusing on challenges and successes, and shared anecdotes from our teaching. From November 2013 to November 2015 we held 14 meetings in all (including one day-long meeting). These recordings were transcribed by a professional transcriber and analyzed by the group. Participants also gathered student work and took photographs and videos to record their work with students. These various forms of data became a part of the stories we shared during meetings. We also discussed our research in a private Facebook group. The real names of the eight teacher participants will be used (after the review process) in presenting findings, but the names of students are pseudonyms. At the first meeting of the research group, a wide definition of creativity from Sternberg and Lubart (2002) was presented and discussed as a starting point. Potential tools for analyzing creativity, among them Bernstein’s (2000) concepts of framing and classification and Cremin,

7

Burnard and Craft´s (2006) pedagogical model of creativity, were also presented and discussed.

Analysis In the first rounds of analysis, the transcribed data were read, reread, and coded with open coding, and interesting issues concerning creativity emerged. The analysis was ongoing throughout the two years of the research. After each meeting, I read the transcript and wrote my initial responses as researcher´s comments (RC) and collated a summary of points of interest at the end of the transcript. The summary and RC guided the issues and questions we discussed at the next meeting. This would sometimes prompt me to ask about specific issues such as collaboration in the teachers´ schools, or to probe the teachers’ narratives by asking them to describe certain events in more detail or to give examples of their conclusions. At the third meeting, for example, I asked the teachers to describe what signs they saw of students being creative according to their understanding of creative work. The meetings were also analytical, as the teachers were asked beforehand to prepare and share certain issues at the meetings. For example, near the end of the first school year, at our fifth meeting inby early May 2014, they were asked to prepare for the meeting by considering the following questions: 1. Have you noticed any themes or trends in your journal? One aim ahead is to work on your journals, look for tendencies or trends, and perhaps look at it with the „glasses” we presented at the first meeting. 2. What do your journal and your reflections tell you about which steps you want to take next? Sometimes there are issues you discover in the journal that you would like to look closer at – it might even be something that surprises you. At one point near the end of the research in the second year, we met for a whole day in June to do analytical exercises and discuss the Creativity Pamphlet issued by the Ministry of Education and Culture in NN (J.I.et al., 2012, to be inserted later). In the latter phases of analysis, we drew upon Bernstein’s (2000) concepts, along with analytical tools to detect framing from Jónsdóttir (2011), to analyze pedagogy in the trends that emerged from the data. Well into the second year of the study, we used the analytical tool depicted in Figure 1 to identify Bernstein’s (2000) concepts of framing and power in our own teaching in order to recognize who had control in the classroom or learning space and understand how that framing influenced learners´ autonomy and creativity. This analytical exercise helped us to identify in more detail what kinds of learning spaces or opportunities for creative work we as teachers designed for our students, as framing is about who decides the location of work (in the classroom, the corridor or outside school, at home, virtual or out in nature), time restrictions, or social and emotional communication (unequal or equal roles; strict or relaxed communication). We did not, however, use these concepts and theories as strict guidelines throughout the research. Instead, we used them along the way as tools to sharpen our focus on our

8

discoveries and to deepen our understanding and discussion of what was or was not occurring.

4. Acquiring sensitivity to framing – giving students control Our findings at the end of the second year indicated that the teachers had become more aware of the opportunities for creativity they offer their students in lessons. By collecting data on their teaching and analyzing their work, all teachers acknowledged that they were controlling more than they anticipated and that they wanted to give more control to students. All teachers acted on their plans to strengthen their support for creative work with students during the 2014-15 school year. The group gathered stories from teaching, depicting the ways in which they worked with students to enhance creativity and achieve other goals. Fostering creativity turned out to be a complex endeavor, characterized by several factors that can be adjusted and influenced. The overarching theme we extracted was about control in learning spaces. Other related themes were as follows: supporting student agency, experimenting with framing, engagement and personal interpretation, challenging ingrained patterns of learners as receivers, finding balance between freedom and control, and finally professional development through action research. We also identified the following threads and issues within the themes: drawing on students interests and strengths, possibility thinking, flexibility, taking risks, having fun, using modern technology and life outside school, standing back, and limitations and challenges. Examples of the narratives and descriptions of the teachers’ work are introduced here to represent the themes and threads. Due to space limitations, I chose one or two stories to illustrate each theme. The examples were chosen according to how well each represented a theme and identified threads in a holistic story. 4.1. CONTROL IN LEARNING SPACES The stories from the teachers emphasize giving students power and control by supporting possibility thinking and nurturing an ethos of engagement, experimentation, and risk-taking. As we gathered stories about our teaching, we looked into who controlled in the classroom or learning space -- the teacher or the students -- or if power and agency were shared. 4.1.1. Supporting student agency and possibility thinking Sally is a preschool teacher. She described how she and her colleagues drew on the children’s interests to increase their agency and participation: I was working on projects with children aged four to five years old. We had offered a five-themed project as we had listened in on their interests. First there were three areas of interest: crocodiles, sharks and volcanoes. When we asked them if there was anything else, they said they wanted to learn more about the Christmas cat and

9

the owl too. My creative work is in making it possible for them to choose and make the choices visible. We made pictures of these strands as well as others and they could then choose the theme they wanted to work with by pinning it with a blue tack. Stories from Hanna and Elsa indicate creative work with students in different ways. Hanna made an assortment of old clothes and props available to students in her NN class. They used these to try on different characters and identities in reenacting stories they read in NN lessons. She supported their possibility thinking by allowing them to interpret classic stories as short plays and create videos using their cell phones. Drama is now an obligatory subject in NN compulsory education, and Hanna intertwines it with her NN teaching. When teaching the old sagas in 10th grade, Hanna told the students to choose one of the sagas to develop into a play as a project stretching over four weeks. At this point, she knew the students well and had done quite a few drama exercises and games with them to enhance group dynamics. The students chose to work with the saga about Baldur the kind and Loki the bad, who is responsible for Baldur’s death in the end. They discussed the story from different angles and connected it to modern-day issues, such as bullying and manipulation of people. The students performed an original play from the story. They worked in small groups of Hanna’s choosing, as she knew which students were vulnerable and which were socially strong. The preparation work with the drama exercises had made the students feel positively toward each other. They wrote a script for the play and gave it to Hanna for comments, though Hanna emphasized independent work with a minimum of teacher input. The final product was shown to a group of students 5th grade[?] who were learning about ancient Norse gods, as well as to another group of students at a secondary school. Hanna realized that this method helps the students engage in NN as a versatile, interesting and fun subject. In addition to the subject matter itself, the students also learned to plan, work together, collaborate, and compromise. Hanna noticed an increase in their confidence through presenting their ideas and the play. Elsa, a mathematics teacher, expanded the boundaries of her classroom. She supported student agency by allowing them to leave the classroom to investigate mathematical issues they identified. She ran a project focusing on connecting everyday life with mathematics. To begin with, the class watched a short video introducing how math is everywhere: in music, dance, games, and nature. The golden ratio and the Pythagorean theory were explained in a fun way. Then Elsa introduced the project and the overall timeframe. The students chose one issue or theme that was introduced in the film, as well as choosing whether to work individually or in small groups of 2-4. They then chose and controlled how to investigate their chosen theme: how to collect data, what data to collect, how to process it, and how to present their findings. For example, the students chose the appropriate tools (i.e. computer, smartphone, ipad, photograps, drawings, essay) according to what they found fit best with their theme or what most appealed to them. The most common forms of presentations were posters, short written documents with pictures, and PowerPoint presentations. They

10

chose themes such as: football fields, the golden ratio, mathematics in nature, swimming and mathematics, and dancing and mathematics. Elsa was determined to stand back, let the students decide, and have them tackle the challenges and decisions they had to make. She sometimes had to stop herself from immediately responding when the students were stuck. Instead of giving an answer, she would ask them: “how could this be resolved? How might this be possible?” In this project, students were given ample agency and possibilities to relate mathematics to their interests and daily life and to exercise their creativity and resourcefulness. 4.1.2. Caged freedom – an experiment to weaken framing Jean implemented a student-authored syllabus in one module in her NN class in the spring of 2015. The students in the group were in their final year of an upper-secondary school that emphasizes student-led curriculum. Jean wanted to offer students an open teaching plan to be led by students’ interests and ideas within the overall aims of the module. In the first lesson, she presented them with large sheets of paper with empty timeframes and information about the evaluation criteria for the module. She described the reactions thusly: I said to them: “This is your syllabus: what do you want to do?” The students were surprised and asked: “Can we really do anything we want?” I answered: “No, not anything, we are studying modern literature and the module must be about that. You must take into account the goals from the national curriculum for this module. And we have already decided which books to read because we had to publish the reading list before the beginning of the school year. In every other way, you can influence what we will be doing.” After this introduction to discuss the aspects that the students could influence, they began working in small groups on developing the syllabus. They handed the plans in to Jean to read and evaluate. In my opinion, their plans were too much like the one I had made last year for this module. They had some new ideas, such as making podcasts about the learning materials, that I tried to take into account. Jean discovered that one of the students had drawn a picture of an animal in a cage on the back of the plan and written: “Caged freedom?” (Figure 2). I thought to myself: “yes, of course, we are set within several framework and demands.” I had presented the framework that the module had to fit into, including its aims, specific books and timeframe. I felt I needed to discuss with students more what our goals were in this module even if these were goals set by others. Jean treated this image as a message from students that she heard and wanted to respond to. In the next lesson, they again discussed the framework that controlled the design of teaching and learning. Jean believed that giving students agency to develop their own

11

curriculum (within set guidelines) would engage students and support their creativity. Jean reflected on this experiment: This experiment has mostly influenced creative learning in allowing students freedom and independence. They are now more aware of their studies and realize that they can influence their own learning. The communication in the classroom is also more on a peer level, and I believe that the students see me now more as a guide than a traditional teacher. In the module, the students wrote scripts from the short stories they had read. They also designed and made bookmarks they used to present their book of choice and wrote creative reading journals. In the latter part of the module, they wrote children’s books and illustrated them using a digital drawing program. Jean deliberated on what to change next time: I expected more fireworks, but I think that I will be better prepared next time. I will encourage them more to make good use of the freedom and agency I am handing over to them. She wondered whether she should start the module in a traditional way, letting students take over the reins when everyone knew each other better. 4.1.3 Engagement and personal interpretation Sean, an upper-secondary NN teacher, had been working with classic NN sagas. In one assignment, he allowed students to choose between interpreting stories as short videos or drawing them as cartoons. He introduced the main story first and used open questions to engage students in the content and possibilities of the themes at play. Jean, an NN teacher in the same school, found creative ways to make learning more appealing for students than sitting still at a desk, reading and writing: They have to learn the story and know what it is about, and for some of them reading takes a long time. So I wrote several questions about the content of the story – it can be tedious to sit for two lessons and answer questions. Therefore, I cut the questions up and spread them around the school. Only one student from each group was allowed to go out of the classroom to find questions and then they answered jointly. This created a relaxed atmosphere, as someone was always getting up to get the next question – so there was movement and discussion going on and they were much fresher and engaged than usual in this work. Sean also had his students enact a fictional court trial of farmer Bjartur, the main character in Halldor Laxness’ classic novel Independent People, in order to engage them in the story. This was the final project in a course about the novel. The students took on different roles, such as witnesses, the prosecutor, the defense attorney, and Bjartur. They prepared the trial, enacted it, and concluded with a verdict that they had to defend. In order to do this,

12

the students had to know the story quite well, interpret possible misconduct of the farmer, and give voice to different characters and their views. Most students have welcomed this project, as can be seen in a typical student evaluation: The court trial was a very creative project. It’s always good to have versatile assignments. The trial showed me perspectives from others and allowed us to put ourselves into specific roles and I enjoyed that. I was constantly coming across something new I had missed when reading the story and it was challenging and useful to have to cite the novel to defend oneself from all kinds of accusations. Sean’s evaluation of the project from the teacher’s point of view was that it requires student responsibility and independence and enhances their critical and creative thinking as they take part in the play. He also concludes that it deepens the students understanding of the story and trains them to look at issues from new perspectives, different from the first, obvious one. Furthermore, Sean has seen that this project encourages students to try new things. He went on to say that chaos is not the end of the world, but rather carries the seed of something exciting and empowering. 4.1.4. Challenging embedded patterns of learners as receivers Tina, an NN teacher at the university level, provided a narrative about teaching her course in creative use of NN for education students. She indicated that getting them going can be challenging, and she needs to lead students to do creative tasks: When I start the course and try to engage them in independent, creative work they just look at me and wait for me to answer – I’m not too happy about that. I think they are very inactive and want me to steer everything I ask them to do in detail. I started by letting them write about what they think creativity is. Then we would discuss that we all are creative in our daily lives. We dress, cook, and sort out all kinds of problems and challenges. They were surprised to discover how many creative tasks they can identify in everyday life. I point out that daily speech is also very creative – just how we talk to friends, make jokes, phrases or even new words. It seems that these students were used to the role of learners as receivers, and needed stepby-step support to engage and accept the agency they were being offered. As the course progressed, the students were able to try out various exercises and tasks to expand and strengthen their creative capacities. In the beginning, Tina led a discussion about the importance of daring to take risks even if experiments do not always work well. She pointed out that they can learn a lot from mistakes. Many of the students first claim they have no ideas and my work, in the beginning, is about diminishing these suppositions about themselves. I let them write a short think-piece about creativity in daily life and usually they come to the conclusion that they are always being creative as they cook, knit, sing, groom themselves and dress.

13

None of these activities occur without some thought and they often require some creativity. Along the way, the students did different activities, tasks and assignments that required them to be independent and creative. Students performed, discussed and deliberated different activities. For example, students walked around the school building to investigate paintings and artwork, and then wrote about them in various genres. They also did drama exercises in relation to literature, and did creative reading aloud and made manuscripts and videos. One of the tasks students did in Tina’s course is to select a traffic sign and use it as a prompt for writing a poem. They are meant to engage with emotions, feelings and personal experience. One student chose the sign Detour and wrote: Detour I entered a detour In life And the expedition became a destination. My journey crossed Less traveled routes Through rough wades. I see a lot That is for most Hidden all their lives. But sometimes I feel that the road Should be marked F (coarse mountain road) (Daníel Ómar Viggósson, January 19. 2015) In the first round of the research, Tina described her teaching as “not very democratic.” She therefor set herself the goal of letting go of controlling student work as much as she could. When she attempted this, she got little response from the students and gathered that they were not used to working in that way. But she persisted and made sure that students had control over how they worked on their assignments. “I was not looking for anything specific, I just wanted them to step out of their comfort zones and try something new.” By the end of the course, she noticed the students were gradually beginning to meet challenges and solve the problems they faced as they tackled the assignments, which required creativity and resourcefulness. At the end of the course, the students presented short films they had created independently based on a selection of poems. The students surprised both Tina and themselves with the creativity, originality and resourcefulness they displayed in the films and subsequent discussions. 4.1.5. Adjusting framing – finding balance between freedom and control The teachers started their action research projects with the concepts of framing and classification in mind as they aimed to develop their teaching to increase support of

14

creativity in student work. They particularly looked for indicators of control in the classroom and student learning in order to identify who controlled what and how. I, Susanna, teach in teacher education at the university level. When I started to analyze data about my teaching I was disappointed at first as I realized the various framework and constraints in our graduate-level course “Working in Inclusive Practices,” which included both teachers and teaching students. It is a blended course taught partially on-line, with four intensive, on-campus, whole-day sessions. In one of our meetings I reflected on my experience of the course as follows: I teach with two other teachers in close collaboration and they are both very creative and resourceful. We have implemented the pedagogy of innovation education as a core method in this course as we want our students to be creative, innovative and resourceful in a demanding job. Our goal is to empower our students by offering them knowledge and tools to work with when they enter or return to practice in schools. This is in line with the description of the course in the university’s catalogue, which states: The aim of the course is to prepare participants to draw on their own resources in their work with diverse group of students. In the course we draw on the ideology of inclusive education where an emphasis on a holistic and creative approach to preparation and teaching is in the forefront. (University of NN, 2013) To achieve these goals we have emphasized student choice in reading, mixed with predetermined reading materials. In the on-campus sessions, we emphasize student engagement and hands-on work in relation to course themes and academic readings. We keep lectures to a minimum and let students engage in various activities, discussions, walkand-talks, and interpreting ideas and experiences in tangible forms using different resources such as recyclable materials and Lego cubes. Looking closer at the different elements, tasks, and content of the course, I realized that, even though there were many frames and restrictions, overall the course offered students considerable opportunities for creativity. As I reflected on the different elements in the course and plotted my evaluation according to the table we used in the analytical exercise, I saw that our framing was mixed, but leaned towards weak framing (Figure 3). Knowledge was partially pre-determined by teachers, as the course had a specific content and focus, but also by students, who were able to seek out readings and knowledge according to their needs and interests. Tasks and topics were sometimes chosen by teachers and sometimes by students. Students often had control over methods, particularly in how they sought knowledge and how they presented their findings. Development of ideas related to tasks and assignments was most often under the control of the students, with teacher support. Communication was informal and students were considered our equals in many ways. They could freely approach us in intensive sessions and we were available for them online on Moodle or via email. Pacing (when to deliver assignments) was mainly in the hands of the

15

teachers, with possible flexibility if needed. Teachers often supplied the materials (readings, Legos, reusable materials), but sometimes students could choose to work with other materials. The teachers defined evaluation in large part, but self-evaluation, justified and rationalized by the students themselves, was 10% of the course grade. Overall, the framing was mixed but often leaned toward weak or very weak. Sometimes it was not possible to pin it down exactly, as control could vary according to student participation and the flexibility we offered. By talking to students and reading their self-evaluation reports, I realized that the weak framing had been a challenge for many of them, though most were able to handle and make use of the freedom offered for creativity and engagement. One of the tasks in the last intensive session was for students to interpret their experience in the course and express with Lego blocks. Most of them found this a bit challenging at first: The tasks and assignments in this course were multiple and some of them took a long time but they were enjoyable and I learned a lot from them, especially from the Lego work. When we were asked to do that I once again thought: “Ha ha, how is that even possible, to express how I experienced this course with Lego blocks?” but voila, it was not hard, it was super fun and so nice to see the outcomes from other students. (Emma self-evaluation report, Spring 2014) Other students struggled with different tasks that were meant to exercise their independence and creativity. One assignment was to write a short article or a thought-piece that might be developed into a non-reviewed published article. They wrote five thoughtpieces, one on each theme, presented each in a group of 8-9 students on Moodle, and received responses from group members. In the end, they chose one article to submit for formal evaluation. Some of the students found this task challenging: I am so insecure about these articles. We are encouraged to write about our own experience in these articles but also to cite references. Sometimes I find it very difficult to combine these two, to be personal and write about my own experience and my ideas and integrate that with academic references. I also find it very challenging to be personal when other students will read my text and even criticize it and sometimes destructively. I also find it very hard to criticize what others have written, it is ok to read it and give positive comments. (Bella, e-mail communication, spring 2015) This experience showed me that the creative freedom we intended for this task was overshadowed by the vulnerability of this student, her fear of peer criticism, and the common gulf between practice (personal and professional experience) and theory (academic writing). Bella also expressed in her self-evaluation report that she was often insecure, especially when beginning other creative tasks in the course. Another student enjoyed the openness and flexible form of the thought-pieces:

16

I like these thought-pieces. I like that form. Sometimes it fits me to take a bit of a rant on the issues I discuss, because I have a lot to say about them but I sometimes forget to be academic and cite references to support my claims. But I often feel that I get little out of the responses from my group partners. There is a certain tendency to be either for or against certain points of view. Nobody should be against inclusive schooling. However it may be debatable whether the length of the thought-pieces is suitable – discussing school curricula or individual curricula in a 600-word piece is challenging for a talkative man like me. (John, self-evaluation report, Spring 2015) This student also enjoyed the hands-on, creative tasks in the intensive sessions where students discussed and presented sculptures made of recyclable materials on their understanding of the main messages of the film The Freedom Writers Diary (one of the course´s learning materials): I thoroughly enjoyed working on our interpretation in this creative task. As you can see, my group made an intricate and well-thought-out artifact. To watch a film as a part of getting knowledge is a good method. However, I also liked having the teacher presentations in the intensive on-campus sessions in between group work. My analysis of this course and my efforts with my two colleagues to support student creativity show that as teachers we must be sensitive to the kinds of support each student needs at this level, especially in a diverse class with different resources. The students were not all ready to seize the power we wanted to hand over to them. Some of them, like Bella, needed stronger framing, at least until they got more confident in actualizing and presenting their creative work. Others enjoyed the freedom. This research has helped me to be more aware of our framing and how we can adjust it along the way according to students’ different needs, and as they become more and more empowered as professionals through creative work. 4.1.6. Enhancing professional development through action research The seven teachers remaining in the research group at the end of the two years participated in an analytical exercise on their own teaching in November 2014, using the Who is in control? model shown in Figures 1 and 3. The results showed that all of them used mixed framing with a zig-zag pattern between control and freedom, but strongly leaning towards weak framing, similar to Susanna´s example in Figure 3. All eight teachers noticed that they had become more sensitive to how they could support student creativity more effectively by using framing more consciously. Jean concluded in our online discussion: Since I started this research, I have become more aware of how to support student creativity. I noticed that, in order to teach creatively, I have to be creative and adapt creative approaches. Increasing student control and allowing them more freedom achieves better results. My personal and professional gain in taking part in this action research has already occurred, and I see the same with all participants. I am

17

excited about the future. What would happen if all teachers would sit down and discuss creative learning? As the research process unfolded, the value of doing action research became clearer and was often discussed in our meetings. Hanna claimed: “I think that because we in the research group meet regularly, it keeps me on my toes, so to speak; I keep thinking about these creativity issues and there is constantly something fermenting.” She also reflected that: After reflecting on different projects in my teaching I have concluded that the teacher’s input and control is necessary to a certain degree. I have learned from the self-reflection in the research what creative projects are about and that it is not possible to do a perfect creative project. I have learned through the research process to be more sensitive to how I work. . . I have now, during these two school years, tried to be less controlling in the actual creative work, but found that it is necessary to control the overall framing, in my case selecting small group combinations, timeframe and evaluation. The students more or less do the idea work and create the actual product. Well into the second year of the research Tina, the veteran teacher of the group, soon to retire but still learning and keen to strengthen her teaching, said: “I have always been eager to experiment in teaching without knowing if it will be successful. What I have learned most in this research is to involve my students more in taking risks and experimenting.”

5. Discussion Teaching is a complex task, and teaching for creativity is especially complicated. However, it is possible to work at enhancing student creativity, as these narratives from four school levels showed. By making challenges visible, we were able to adjust our teaching towards more student agency and creativity. Bernstein´s concepts of classification and framing helped us to identify control and power in our teaching, and to understand how we could adjust framing towards increasing student agency and creativity. Certain constraints and supportive elements of creative work with students were identified. Sometimes regulative control of subjects and curriculum influence the flexibility and potential to work in creative ways. However, creative teachers find ways to use the frames they must work within in engaging ways. Students are used to being told what to do and how to do it. Group and individual differences must be taken into account. Although students learn to work in creative ways and get used to the freedom teachers offer, some students are insecure and need stronger framing to lead them in their creative work and towards more independence. We realized that our framing -- how we controlled in the learning spaces or gave students agency to influence their work -- was crucial for supporting their creativity. Through our action research different theories and findings deepened our understanding of how we worked in our practice, such as realizing when it was important to “stand back” to support creativity, as Craft et al. advise. We also saw how different theories spoke to the same

18

issues, such as the concepts of framing from Bernstein (2000) and Craft´s et al. (2006) standing back and offering flexibility of time and space, where the latter often could be identified as weak framing. Overall, our framing was mixed but tended towards weak, with minor differences between teachers. Looking for and experimenting with framing helped us to develop sensitivity to the kind of pedagogy we were applying. We became more aware of when to stand back when students were working, and tried to find a balance between freedom and control. We also realized that complete freedom was not feasible and we always had to have some control and frames, although we aimed towards weakening our framing over time as students´ agency and engagement increased and they were able to take responsibility and utilize the freedom offered. Engaging students in personal interpretation sometimes challenged their roles as receivers, but by drawing on their interests and strengths, we fostered their possibility thinking. The teacher-researchers identified limitations and challenges to supporting student creativity. We tackled these by applying flexibility (adjusting to students´ different needs), taking risks by doing experiments, having fun (play), using technology, and connecting with life outside school. This action research project provided a tool and a platform for gaining deeper understanding of our work to foster student creativity by looking into our own teaching as we reflected on our actions and discussed these with other participants. We acquired a richer understanding of how to foster student creativity. We enhanced our pedagogical awareness through the process, and that helped us to understand and develop our work with students. Working across four school levels was inspiring, and we agreed that we could learn a lot from each other, and not least from the pre-school experiences Sally shared. We learned about the situation at different levels and about how teachers in different subjects went about making learning creative and engaging. We shared stories and understandings from each other’s contexts and points of view. We got a bit of an overview across school levels, seeing potential and possibilities in creative schoolwork that we want to share here, though only partially. Policy makers need to realize the complexity of implementing new kinds of curricular thinking into practice, such as building aims of education on fundamental ideals rather than around subjects. In the case of NN it can be said that the policy makers did to some extent realize this complexity, since they followed the implementation of the curriculum in 2011 by publishing booklets elucidating the six fundamental ideals. However, teachers and schools need support, time, and space for school development. One of many possible ways is to encourage teachers to conduct action research as they develop their efficacy, teaching towards fulfilling the aims of competencies built on fundamental ideals. We hope that our experiences will inspire other groups of teachers to discuss creativity in education and work collaboratively by doing action research project to support their professional development. The experience from this research can help others identify creativity in teaching and learning at any school level. The stories and ideas of creative teaching and learning we have presented here, and the lessons we have learned, can be

19

used to reflect upon and to produce ideas about how to make teaching and learning more creative in different subjects and at different school levels. The findings show the elements to which teachers should be sensitive, and that it is important to find the balance between structure and freedom that best fits the conditions and circumstances. We believe our stories can help others to be attentive to their framing, and how to deliberately use framing to support students´ creativity and adjust to different needs. Funding We thank the University of NN Research Fund for supporting this research Acknowledgements I want to thank the aspiring and creative teachers that I had the pleasure to work with in this research for their collaboration and inspiration: Tina, Erin, Elsa, Hanna, Jean, Sean and Sally - thank you.

20

References Albert, R. S. & Runco, M. A. (2002). A history of research on creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 16-31). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Amabile, T. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 76-87. Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C. & Baer, J. (2015), Teaching for creativity in the common core classroom. Teaching for creativity in the common core. New York:Teachers College. Bell, B. & Gilbert, J. (1994). Teacher development as professional personal and social development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(5), 483-497. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (2. ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INC. Boden, M. A. (2005). The creative mind: myths and mechanisms (2 ed.). New York: Routledge. Brooks, J. G. & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In Search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Butzin, S. M. (2004). Project CHILD: a proven model for the integration of computer and curriculum in the elementary classroom. Asia Pacific Cyber journal, 1(1). Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Melbourne: Deakin University Press. Craft, A. (2000). Creativity across the primary curriculum: Framing and developing practice. London and New York, NY: Routledge. Craft, A. (2001). An analysis of research and literature on creativity in education. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Craft, A. (2006). Little c Creativity. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey & M. Leibling (Eds.), Creativity in education (pp. 45-61). London: Continuum. Craft , A., Cremin, T., Burnard, P., & Chappell, K. (2007). Teacher stance in creative learning: A study of progression. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(2), 136–147. Craft, A., McConnon, L., & Paige-Smith, A. (2012). Child-initiated play and professional creativity: enabling four-year-olds’ possibility thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(1), 48–61. Cremin, T., Burnard, P., & Craft, A. (2006). Pedagogy and possibility thinking in the early years. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(2), 108–119. Cushman, K. (1997). Essential leadership in the school change process. Horace, 13(4). Fischer, U. & Madsen, B. L. (2001). Se her! Om börns opmærksomhed og pædagogens rolle. Köbenhavn: Forlaget Börn & Unge / Pædagogisk Centrum. Guðjónsdóttir, H. (2004). Kennarar ígrunda og rannsaka eigið starf. Tímarit um menntarannsóknir. 1(27–38). Guðjónsson, H. (2008). Starfendarannsóknir í Menntaskólanum við Sund. Netla – Veftímarit um uppeldi og menntun. Retrieved from http://netla.khi.is/greinar/2008/002/index.htm

21

Gunnarsdóttir, R. (2001). Innovation education: defining the phenomenon (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Leeds, Leeds. Jeffrey, B. (2005). Creative learning and students' perspectives research project (CLASP). Final report. Approved by the European Commission April 2005. London: Tufnell Press. Jeffrey, B. & Craft, A. (2004). Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity: Distinctions and relationships. Educational Studies, 30(1), 77-87. J.I. to be inserted after review. Jónsdóttir, S. R. (2007). Nýsköpunarmennt í íslenskum grunnskólum. Uppeldi og menntun, 16(1), 53-7. Jónsdóttir, S. R. (2011). The location of innovation education in NN compulsory schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of NN, Reykjavík. Jónsdóttir, S. R. & Macdonald, A. (2013). Pedagogy and settings in innovation education. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of innovation education (pp. 273-287). London: Routledge. Kjartansdóttir, E. (2007). Starfendarannsóknir til valdeflingar: Með rannsóknum á eigin störfum geta kennarar öðlast vald yfir þekkingunni á fagi sínu. Ráðstefnurit Netlu – Menntakvika 2010. Retrieved from http://netla.hi.is/menntakvika2010/alm/007.pdf Macdonald, A. & Jóhannsdóttir, Þ. (2006). Fractured pedagogic discourse: Teachers’ responses to educational interventions. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research. Retrieved from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/159994.htm Marshall, J. & Reason, P. (2007). Quality in research as “taking an attitude of inquiry”. Management Research News, 30(5), 368-380. Retrieved from http://www.peterreason.eu/Papers/Attitude%20of%20Inquiry%20MRN.pdf Ministry of Education, Scinence and Culture. (2011) – completed after review. NACCCE. (1999). All our futures: Creativity, culture and education. London: Department for Education and Employment. McNiff, J., Lomax, P. & Whitehead, J. (2003). You and your action research project. London: Routledge Oblinger, D. G. (2006). Learning spaces. Boulder: EDUCAUSE. Ribeiro, L. R. d. C., & Mizukami, M. d. G. (2005). An experiment with PBL in higher education as appraised by the teacher and students. Interface - Comunic, Saúde, Educ, 9(17), 357-368. Ripple, R. E. (1989). Ordinary creativity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14(3), 189202. Ryhammar, L. & Brolin, C. (1999). Creativity research: Historical considerations and main lines of development. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 259-273. Sagor, R. (2010). Collaborative action research for professional learning communities. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press. Schmuck, R. A. (2006). Practical action research for change (2ed). Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.

22

Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I. (2002). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., Pretz, J. E., & Kaufman, J. C. (2003). Types of innovations. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 158-169). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. University of NN. (2013). [In NN. University of NN School of Education, Course Catalogue 2013–2014]. Waghid, Y. (2003). Peters’ non-instrumental justification of education view revisited: Contesting the philosophy of outcomes-based education in South Africa. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 22(3/4), 245-265. Whitehead, J., & McNiff, J. (2006). Action research living theory. London ; Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

23

Figure 1: Who is in control? (Developed from Jónsdóttir, 2011)

Figure 2: Caged freedom?

24

Figure 3: Who is in control? Working in Inclusive Practices: WIP

Figure 4: 3-D presentation of the interpretation of the film The Freedom Writers Diary

25