This article was downloaded by: [Deakin University Library]On: 28 September 2013, At: 13:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cete20

Stories about creative teaching andproductive learningLene Tanggaard aa Department of Communication and Psychology, AalborgUniversity, Aalborg, DenmarkPublished online: 25 Mar 2011.

To cite this article: Lene Tanggaard (2011) Stories about creative teaching and productive learning,European Journal of Teacher Education, 34:2, 219-232, DOI: 10.1080/02619768.2011.558078

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.558078

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

European Journal of Teacher EducationVol. 34, No. 2, May 2011, 219–232

ISSN 0261-9768 print/ISSN 1469-5928 online© 2011 Association for Teacher Education in EuropeDOI: 10.1080/02619768.2011.558078http://www.informaworld.com

Stories about creative teaching and productive learning

Lene Tanggaard*

Department of Communication and Psychology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, DenmarkTaylor and FrancisCETE_A_558078.sgm10.1080/02619768.2011.558078European Journal of Teacher Education0261-9768 (print)/1469-5928 (online)Article2011Taylor & Francis342000000May 2011PhD LeneTanggaardlenet@hum.aau.dk

The article is based on an empirical, interview-based research project investigatingresources and barriers to creative teaching within three Danish primary andsecondary schools. The analysis shows how project-oriented teaching does seemto represent a creativity oasis for both teachers and pupils. Furthermore, the workidentifies a distinction between an art-based and a problem-solving approach tocreativity, and it is suggested that teachers help pupils to work with the variousdifferent opportunities for creative learning represented by different subjects inschool. Furthermore, a dilemma is pinpointed between the demand that teachersconform to centrally defined test systems, and the challenges facing our societiesin relation to bringing up pupils and students who dare to take risks, challenge theexisting order and create something new.

Keywords: teaching creatively; creative learning; art based and problem solvingapproaches to creativity

Introduction

Creativity is enjoying a global renaissance of interest, in politics, within academicdisciplines such as psychology and in the domain of education. Learners and workersare expected to apply what they learn in new and creative ways, so as to ensure contin-ued productivity, economic growth and social welfare. In Denmark, teachers areincreasingly being introduced to methods of creative teaching. Furthermore, the arts,material design and sports have been turned into potential examination subjects at thesecondary level (http://www.uvm.dk/Uddannelse/Tvaergaaende omraader/Temaer/Skoleudvikling/Skoleudvikling/Udd/Folke/2009). However, little attention has beenpaid to what exactly constitutes creativity, and what role schools in general aresupposed to play within this scenario. The present article delves into these issues,based on an empirical, interview-based research project investigating resources forand barriers to creative teaching and learning within three Danish primary and second-ary schools. The primary aim of the research project is to find out how teachers talkabout creativity at a school community level, and what they recognise as creative actsamong pupils at the primary and secondary levels. Secondly, the research project aimsat investigating the role played by teacher conceptions of creativity in relation topromoting the creativity of pupils. This is based on the assumption that what teacherstalk about as creative acts among pupils, is also what they see and recognise ascreative in this context. That is, discourses about creativity among teachers can beextremely important in relation to who receives credit for what kinds of creativityamong pupils.

The structure of the article is as follows. First, the theoretical perspective oncreativity in schools is outlined, after which the methodological aspects of the

*Email: lenet@hum.aau.dk

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:02

28

Sept

embe

r 20

13

220 L. Tanggaard

focus-group approach of the research project are described, followed by a resultssection, a discussion and conclusion.

Theoretical framework

A relatively minimal definition of creativity would be to suggest that ‘to create is toact in the world, or on the world, in a new and significant way’ (Mason 2003). Accord-ingly, few researchers today disagree that creativity is a process leading to noveloutcomes or action (Sternberg 2006). This article is concerned with creativity at aschool-community level. Following Glâveanu (2010), the emphasis is on what istermed ‘we-creativity’, that is creativity at a community level. Within creativityresearch, a basic shift has taken place from the concept of the solitary genius (the He-paradigm) to that of the normal and creative individual (the I-paradigm), in whicheach individual is seen as having creative potential which should be developed.However, ‘we-creativity’ is a more fundamental social approach to creativity. We-creativity is the study of how, in this respect, schools not only condition creativeprocesses, but also play a role in determining their nature. For example, teachers notonly condition certain types of creativity through their teaching, but also through themanner in which they talk about creativity. Furthermore, how they organise everydaylife at schools is vital for the actual processes of creativity that occur.

When considering we-creativity, a vital issue is how teachers can actually teach forcreativity. In her book Creativity in schools, Anna Craft (2005) discusses the possibleroles of schools within the creativity discourse and proposes a distinction between (1)teaching for creativity, and (2) teaching creatively. A subsequent distinction is alsomade between creative learning and teaching creatively, recognising that there is – orshould be – a close relationship between teaching creatively and learning to be morecreative, both as a pupil and as a teacher (Jeffrey and Craft, in preparation).

A more moderate notion of teaching for creativity is that teaching can play a rolein nurturing pupil or student willingness to take risks. In his book on education andcreativity, Cropley (2008) refers to an interesting 1981 study from Schwarzkopf, of agroup of women being trained in needlework. The teacher encouraged the students towork with new methods and, after one year, a follow-up study showed that they hadindeed become more eager to experiment with their work. In this sense, if a teacherchallenges students to experiment, and if we follow the premises of the aboveconclusion, they will become keener to try new things.

The second conception of ‘creative teaching’ goes a little deeper into the charac-teristics of teaching itself. In this latter sense, teaching is seen as a potentially creativeand improvised activity, itself being the background for continued change in the dailywork of teachers and of schools as institutions. A major claim within this frameworkis that teachers who are themselves creative, that is, who experiment with new ideasand ways of teaching when their work seems to call for this, create the best conditionsfor enabling pupils or students to become creative themselves. In this respect, thecreative teacher is one who reflects on his or her actions (Schön 1987; Craft, Gardner,and Claxton 2008; Tanggaard 2010).

Sawyer (2004) underlines the above point by drawing a distinction between thecreative teacher who responds to the requirements of daily teaching practice by impro-vising as a central element of the teaching, and the teacher who is obliged to teachaccording to a manual. In manual-based teaching, the teacher is required to teach by

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:02

28

Sept

embe

r 20

13

European Journal of Teacher Education 221

following steps and procedures that are predefined in standardised teaching materials.Sawyer is inspired by a new tendency in the American school system, where teachersin the socially marginalised ghetto areas of New York are obliged to teach accordingto specific manuals to ensure higher scores on tests on which the manuals are based.The system thus ensures that the teaching is closely linked to the tests, and it is oftenvery effective, in the sense that pupils do score higher on the tests. An associateddilemma is that the teacher, who works according to the manual, rather than being areflective and improvisational practitioner, tends to function as an actor reading froma manuscript. When teaching according to the manual, following the specified tasks,obligations and rules, it is possible to raise pupils’ test scores. Nevertheless, itbecomes less likely that the teaching will challenge pupils who are able to go beyondthe framework of the test. In this sense, such teaching methods become a barrier tocreativity, understood as going beyond the existing paradigm or posing new questions.Pupils will become better at responding correctly to expected test questions. However,a possibly unintended side effect could be that the pupils ultimately find a more open,exploratory examination situation, in which they are to create their own definition ofproblems, much less accessible.

The debate on the implications of the increased focus on manual-controlled teach-ing is, however, not only relevant in an American context. In Denmark, the contextfrom which the empirical data in this article are extracted, the introduction of nationaltests, an increased focus on nationalised and centrally defined goals within eachsubject and a new public ranking of schools based on pupils’ mean grades in the finalyears, do seem to indicate a move towards more standardised and controlled condi-tions for teaching and a higher degree of external control and surveillance. While thesituation is still far removed from teaching-by-manuals, judging from the empiricalbasis and the interviews in this article, these new conditions for teaching do, intendedor not, impact on teachers’ everyday lives. They perceive pressure to achieve theobjectives of various centrally defined subjects and material. Although they acknowl-edge that they could achieve these goals by experimenting with their teaching, theyare nervous of the reactions of managers or parents, if pupils fail to make a goodimpression at examinations or acquire a suitable grade point level. The crux of thematter is not whether parents or leaders actually react, but rather that the systeminstalls a real or perceived surveillance system. Teachers are at risk of losing theirwillingness to be creative or experiment and they may lose confidence in their ownability to judge how to teach according to specific classroom situations.

From normative to more empirical perspectives on creativity

At a more general level, one can find dozens of perspectives in the literature on howto nurture the creativity of pupils and students through various teaching methods andthrough creatively promoting learning environments. In a review study, Fasko(2000–2001) summarises the main advice found in much of the literature on creativ-ity in education. In this literature, the teacher or coach is advised to reinforce andsupport spontaneous ideas given by students, to regard certain types of mistakes aspositive aspects of the learning process, to allow digressions which are in the inter-est of students, to allow enough time for optimal learning (creativity is less likelysubject to time pressure), to ensure that the teaching and learning environment ischaracterised by common respect and acceptance, to allow students be part of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:02

28

Sept

embe

r 20

13

222 L. Tanggaard

decision processes by involving everybody and to use feedback as a central elementof teaching.

The general impression gained from reading the review is that the teacher who isurged to facilitate the creativity of pupils will need to perform at a very high levelindeed – not least to make available materials and tools for experimentation and theexplorative discovery of new ideas by pupils. According to Amabile (1996), thecreativity of pupils is reduced if they work for rewards, subject to intense competition,a high degree of surveillance or control and with few choices of their own. Amabiledoes concede that competition or being motivated by external rewards can, in somecases, be productive. This may be the case if pupils or students have a relatively highlevel of self-confidence and/or are not ‘blocked’ by knowing that competition orexternal rewards are part of the process.

A considerable portion of the above literature (see also Torrance 1972) is based onthe fundamental assumption that creativity concerns thinking differently and diver-gently, and it is probably true that such thinking can be developed through the abovemethods. However, it is useful to consider whether or not providing a suitable amountof feedback to pupils or involving them in ongoing decision-making within the class-room are in any specific way creativity-enhancing, or whether this merely amounts todescription of suitable conditions for fruitful school learning. Thus, what is the reasonfor the increased focus on creativity within educational contexts?

In her book on creativity in schools, Craft (2005) stresses that what is needed isempirical work that can help us define more clearly or precisely what constitutes theactual frames and conditions for creative learning and/or teaching for creativity.Within the literature on creativity in education, of which a few references are citedabove, many suggestions and substantial advice for teachers can be found. However,few empirical, and qualitative studies as in the present article, can tell us moreprecisely, concretely and at a practice-based level, how to actually conduct teachingaimed at enhancing the creativity of pupils and furthermore, how teachers themselvesconceive the relatively new or rehabilitated emphasis on creativity within schools(Craft 2008).

In the following discussion, we attempt to remedy this lack of concern by investi-gating teachers’ experiences and interpretations of their current reality concerningteaching for creativity and creative teaching. As its point of departure, the study entailsthree semi-structured focus-group research interviews with 14 teachers at three Danishprimary and secondary schools. The stories contain examples of creative teaching andlearning, but they also raise the fundamental issue of whether the ongoing and increasedfocus on tests and control of pupils’ learning promotes or hinders pupil creativity.Furthermore, there is an analysis of the implications of the creativity discourse for theeveryday life of teachers and, as such, for the institution of school itself.

Methodology/research design

Participants

The 14 teachers interviewed work at three different schools in Denmark. The strategyfor the selection of schools is based on the maximum variation principle described byFlyvbjerg (2006). Such selection criteria are relevant for obtaining information aboutthe significance of various circumstances for case processes and outcome (e.g., threeto five cases that are very different on one dimension: size, form of organisation,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:02

28

Sept

embe

r 20

13

European Journal of Teacher Education 223

location, and budget). Accordingly, one selected school is located in a large city inDenmark, with many pupils from socially and ethnically diverse backgrounds, one isa small town school with only a few pupils who are generally from very homogeneoussocial backgrounds, and one is a relatively large city school in the province. Theteachers were at both the primary and secondary levels. The strategy for selectingthem was also based on the maximum variation principle, so that participants differedwith regard to gender, age, job experience and teaching areas. Within each interview,this allowed for interesting and productive discussions, due to the often differentperspectives of the interview participants. However, the conclusions drawn from eachinterview are strikingly common and generalisable, in the sense that the same overallthemes manifest themselves in all interviews. Against this background, the presentarticle provides some in-depth insight into one of the focus-group interviews with fourteachers in the large city school in the province. This enables us to follow, at reason-able length, the progression in the interview, while in the analysis, still focusing onthe themes which are general to the total empirical material.

Qualitative focus group interviews

In the present context, the focus group interviews are seen as constituting a specificsetting for the dialogical production of diverse discursive repertories about creativityspoken by the teachers themselves (Tanggaard 2009). As such, the aim of the inter-views is to give voice to dissenting discourses within the specific interview settingsembedded in and reflecting broader diversity within institutional talk and practice,concerning the creativity phenomena in particular. A focus group interview is relevantwhen searching for empirical data on how social groups understand and interpret aparticular topic. The topic is most often chosen by the researcher (Barbour 2007). Inthis context, the approach allowed the participants to express their sentiments, tellstories, and digress from the general topic at hand, in order to convey their perspectivesand elucidate the issues that concern them. The interviewer steered the conversationand used her ‘power position’ as an interviewer to introduce new questions to thegroup, and she often asked the group to continue the conversation when it toucheddirectly upon the research question. Within each interview, the group of teachers kneweach other quite well and, while it is difficult to know exactly what the relationalhistory of the group members meant for the flow of conversation, in the various inter-views, it seemed to create an atmosphere of trust. On this basis, open-minded discus-sions took place on the different opinions of the teachers with respect to conceiving ofand recognising creativity among pupils (see also Barbour 2007, 66–8). The resultsprovided some rich and illuminating descriptions of participant experiences, many ofwhich are shared in the present article in the quotations. The author of the presentarticle conducted the interviews, which were then transcribed verbatim by a researchassistant. The names are used in order to enhance readability, but are pseudonyms.

The interviews were semi-structured and based on an interview-guide, which wasidentical for all three focus group interviews. The guide revolved around the overallresearch theme: ‘How do teachers teach for creativity, and how do they perceive theconcept of creativity?’ Within each interview, the interviewers asked for the groups’opinions on the role of creativity within schools and asked them to specify how theyrecognise creativity among pupils. However, it was the actual flow of conversationwhich determined if and when to introduce new questions to guide the interview

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:02

28

Sept

embe

r 20

13

224 L. Tanggaard

towards the topic of creativity. The criteria for participant selection included thewillingness to participate in a tape-recorded interview. Participants were volunteersand not paid for any part of their involvement in the research.

Open coding strategies inspired by grounded theory and a more theoretical orconcept-driven approach was used in analysing the participants’ transcripts (Kvale andBrinkmann 2008). The open coding is an inductive approach that examines the repe-tition of phrases, words, and key constructs. This involved moving from the specificsof the data provided, to the general themes that emerged from coding the transcripts.The more theoretical approach viewed the transcript from the perspective of existingconcepts of creativity and studies of creative teaching. There was a circular movementamong, and an interchange between, these two analytical strategies.

Empirical results

Within each interview, the diverse interpretations of the creativity discourse appearedas a central topic, not least prompted by the interviewer’s concern with precisely thisaspect. Another central issue was the experience of being increasingly controlled byexternal demands arose. Some teachers found this more prominent than others, butwhat is of particular interest is that the questions about creativity seemed to implyanswers to, and to prompt discussions about which external demands actually hinderteaching for creativity or creative teaching.

Creativity – diverse interpretations

Researchers do not agree on a clear and consistent definition of creativity (Pope 2005).In the interviews, the teachers also discuss their conceptions and interpretations of thephenomenon. Is creativity an individual phenomenon, is it achieved by groups, do theproducts of creativity need an art-based flavor and does one need to know the rules inorder to break them? (These discussions are all present in the interview transcripts.)However, when asked directly about their immediate ideas of creativity, it is often theaesthetically or norm-breaking kinds of creativity that are emphasised by the teachersthemselves:

I: What are your views of creativity?Dorrit: I’m thinking about the pupils who sit in class and always create something.

And if we go for a walk in the forest, they make a wreath or something (out ofleaves). And Olga, she is always drawing something. It is not that she doesn’tlisten. In art, she makes something very beautiful; it is as if there is a need forcreation inside her.

Søren: I guess we have a different perspective on creativity at the secondary level, andoverall on the issue. Sometimes, one gets the impression that pupil creativity atthis level is about not doing what you are told. There are really many creativeways in which pupils avoid doing certain tasks; they sometimes spend moreenergy avoiding problems than actually working on them. And then I have toreturn to the 20% of our pupils who drop out of school or disengage, because itis all more of the same. These are the pupils who think creatively. They do notobstruct so much; they can do a lot of things. But approaching creativity in a disci-plinary way, we often kill it. In truth, we do just that at the upper secondary level.

In the interview, Dorrit seems to generate a conception of creativity as a kind ofart in which pupils themselves engage. This kind of creativity seems to run parallel to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:02

28

Sept

embe

r 20

13

European Journal of Teacher Education 225

or supplement the teaching process. As mentioned in the creativity research related toschools (Craft 2005; Cropley 2008), there is ongoing debate as to whether creativityshould be ‘reduced’ to aesthetic expression or rather defined as basically a way ofsolving problems. In the actual interview, the former position is taken by teachers atthe primary level, while the latter is taken by Søren, who teaches at the secondarylevel. However, another interpretation of creativity is also at stake in the interview.Søren defines one kind of creativity as having to do with avoiding certain forms ofschoolwork. The definition of such creativity comes close to the subtle distinctionbetween what is allowed and what is not – the active confrontation and critique ofestablished systems and institutions. Accordingly, this kind of creativity approachesthe famous description of a ‘counter-school culture’ among working-class children inthe early 1970s in Britain (Willis 1977). This certainly constitutes creativity in a radi-cal sense. Within schools, the possibly subtle distinction between creating somethingnew and significant, and breaking with the normal codes of conduct within school canrepresent a challenge in everyday life. One interpretation would be that a truly creativeschool must on the one hand regularly negotiate how to meet the needs and require-ments of pupils and on the other hand, insist on certain rules and regulations withrespect to behaviour. In an analysis of student drop-out in vocational education inAustralia, Smyth and Hattam (2002) suggest that such a negotiating stance is oftenadopted by schools with an active, and we may add, creative school culture. Suchschools are, furthermore, able to motivate students who are otherwise at risk of drop-ping out, because the students feel that their critique and opposition towards the schoolsystem is heard and taken seriously.

Do you have to break rules to be creative?

Another central issue arising in the interviews was whether creative learning alsorequires creative teaching and special techniques. Alternatively, is it more a matter ofcombining the pupils’ knowledge of traditions and a certain amount of school routinewith a degree of encouragement (or at least acceptance) of the breaking of rules bypupils? In the interview, this discussion evolves in an almost Socratic dialogue betweenthe teachers (the following exchange is shortened by the author, such that summaryreplies like ‘yes’ and ‘oh’ are removed from the conversation to enhance readability):

Dorrit: In my brain, rules and creativity are opposites.Annemette: But a handball player can be very creative in the way she plays.Rebekka: But there are rules as well. Because otherwise the game would not work

when playing with others.Dorrit: But it’s when she breaks the rules that she is creative.Annemette: No, it’s not. It’s when she is playing very well [laughter].Dorrit: When really thinking, when doing a new trick nobody has done before,

like Michael Laudrup [legendary Danish football player, LT].Rebekka: Yes, or like Anja Andersen [legendary Danish handball player, LT] when

scoring round at the back. Then it’s something she created herself.Søren: Come on, she cannot play and shoot if she does not know the rules. If

you’re not allowed to jump over the line, she would just run through thedefense and shoot the ball.

If we follow the above teachers’ discussion, we cannot be creative if we don’tknow the rules. It is a condition of being able to juggle with the ball that we know the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:02

28

Sept

embe

r 20

13

226 L. Tanggaard

rules of the game. However, the general question is whether we are being creative bybreaking the rules or by playing well, which of the two creates something new? Thelatter concept is analogous to newer theories on creativity e.g., Csikszentmihalyi(1996) who underlines that there can be no creativity if something new is not recogn-ised as such within given regimes and domains. Creativity is the phenomenon of creat-ing something ‘good’, producing something of value to others, while the genius mayviolate or break the rules and still be creative in this way. The interpretation ofcreativity as breaking the rules is closer to the cognitive and individualistic notion ofcreativity as thinking and acting as radically as possible. The discussion also pinpointsthe following dilemma: To what degree can we concentrate on conveying skills andgood thinking habits which might, in some respects, constitute a barrier to the risk-taking necessary for creative improvisation? And related to that question: Does a highdegree of regulation and control minimise the interaction between good ideas whichform the basis of creativity?

The above discussion also initiates a debate within the interview on whether creativ-ity is ‘killed’ after primary school, or whether it is necessary to be even more creativeas a teacher in secondary school, to enable the pupils to acquire certain skills and knowl-edge areas. In the following discussion, it is evident how conceptions of creativity docross swords within the interview and how the teachers challenge each other:

Dorrit: I think we are very creative in primary school. It is my impression that allteachers are very creative. And I get really upset when I see how the kids,who were involved in creative learning in primary school, just get thisknocked out of them at secondary level.

Søren: No, no, no, stop now. What I have been saying is that we are very creativeat the secondary level. I mean, you really have to be very creative as ateacher to do non-creative teaching.

Annemette: How does that work?Søren: I really mean it. If you are constantly measured on results, if you need to

reach certain goals with rigid constraints, it’s really hard to motivatepupils. This needs true creativity. I mean, to see that equations are excitingstuff. In general, it’s very, very boring to 99.9% of all human beings. Forsure, we are also creative, but we may not address it as clearly as you doin primary school. Well, you might be cleverer than we are. It’s not my jobto judge that. You are really good at saying things the right way, but…

Dorrit: I’m quite sure that you are much better at doing equations than I am[laughter].

Søren: But I am – I mean we are creative. Maybe it is just more difficult for us toshow it.

In the above dialogue, Dorrit emphasises how creative they are as teachers in primaryschool, possibly inspired by Søren’s earlier focus on their need for conditions that aremore conducive to productive and creative learning within secondary school. Sheindicates that it is a problem if they are working with creative forms of learning inprimary school, if it is more or less put into ‘cold storage’ in secondary school. Sørenobjects to this statement by referring to the fact that creativity is given another expres-sion within mathematics. At a more analytical level, one interpretation would be thatthe potential to make creative thinking and creative production a continuous processin the overall schooling life of the pupil declines, if the pupil is not actually madeaware that creativity may take another from in mathematics, compared to entirelydifferent types of subjects, such as arts and crafts.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:02

28

Sept

embe

r 20

13

European Journal of Teacher Education 227

Creativity as a spontaneous process or as everyday analysis and adjustment

When asked if they have become less creative over the last few years, Annemette, oneof the teachers in the province school, replies: ‘No, we are managed more top-down,but I guess the creativity and the energy is still there’. ‘Yes’, replies Søren: ‘becausewe are now creative in a more analytical sense’. Thus, it is Søren’s impression thatthey, as a group of teachers, have become more reflective, analytical and perhaps moremodest as to their activities. Taking an analytical approach to these statements, acertain degree of freedom, idea-support, trust/openness, playfulness, humour,conflicts and risk-taking among employers is often mentioned as promoting the‘creative climate’ of an organisation (Moultrie and Young 2009). Building on theabove statements from the teachers in the interview, the possibly lower degree of free-dom and risk-taking among the teachers could represent a challenge to the creativityamong teachers at this particular school.

In the next part of the interview, the teachers begin to reflect on exactly this rela-tionship between the spontaneous, as opposed to the more analytical embracement ofcreativity:

Rebekka: These days, we are working very hard in a very structured manner on plansfor the year. We used to be involved in many of these projects, you know.Hey, the circus is coming to town, let’s do something, just grasp the ideaand do something – I don’t think we see much of that anymore – if that iswhat you would term creativity – spontaneity.

Annemette: Yes, being spontaneous.Dorrit: I guess much of that is put aside in recent years, but I believe it will return,

if we dare to think like Rebekka and Annemette. Oh, yes, we have ourplans for the year, but let’s just do it, dare to be a little bold.

In this manner, the teachers talk with each other about a school reality becomingmuch more structured than before, by means of rational planning and organised timeallocation. They apparently contrast this with being more spontaneous. In this sense,creativity is seen as brashness, as daring to break with the plan or rules and to defy theexisting order. Returning to the research questions on how teachers conceive ofcreativity and how this affects their everyday recognition of creativity among them-selves and pupils, one could say that the latitude for engendering creative actions isregarded as being limited to what can relatively easily be planned and is not too risky.

Creativity as an aspect of project-oriented thematic work

In each interview, teachers indicate that project-oriented or workshop activities are themost creativity-promoting school activity:

Rebekka: It is my experience, at least within our team, that we have an increasedfocus in our ‘thematic weeks’ each year on giving the teaching a twist ofcreativity. I don’t know if it is actually kind of a compensation for oureveryday work, but it is my impression that when we are finally teachingthematically, four to five weeks each year, then we have an increasedfocus on creativity. We think differently – they are supposed to cooksomething, to swim, to play, to do crazy things, you know, we call thingsdifferent names; some years ago we had this huge Harry Potter week. Itwas amazing, it grew and grew and crazy new ideas came up. I don’tknow, what do you think?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:02

28

Sept

embe

r 20

13

228 L. Tanggaard

Annemette: Yes, this is my impression as well, especially the feeling that things growand are bubbling with excitement.

Rebekka: Yes, it is bubbling over.Annemette: It grows, it jumps out.Rebekka: Yes, and after 14 days like that, you need to get back to the usual routine

within the usual framework, and some of the kids need that as well.Annemette: Yes.Rebekka: We can’t do it all the time.Annemette: No, it is difficult to keep up the sprit.Rebekka: Yes, yes, you get carried away with it yourself.

The ‘seething and bubbling’ metaphor for the creative work is an interesting andrevealing one. From the teachers’ statements, creativity, meaning that things developor grow in new and unexpected directions, seems to emerge rapidly, given the rightconditions. One interpretation is that the thematic project weeks might constitute aframework for delving deep into one or more themes. Some researchers on teachingfor creativity have emphasised how such absorption into particular themes createssuitable conditions for creativity (Lindström 2009). Furthermore, the thematic workseems to represent a break from the everyday teaching routine; a break which can beexperienced as inspiring for both teachers and pupils. However, the energy outlet inthese weeks often results in the need to return to the usual framework. Compared tothe above experience that the leeway for creativity in everyday school-life hasbecome constrained in recent years, due to increasing pressure on rational planningand control of what teachers may do in their classes, project-oriented work seems torepresent an oasis for more spontaneous teaching. Furthermore, the pupils seem togain access to an experience of creative learning (Craft 2005), that delves deeperinto particular subjects and is able to make the theme grow in new and unexpecteddirections.

External pressure confronts creativity

In the above interview, an issue that commonly arises is that external pressure ofdifferent kinds represents a threat to creativity. This refers to demands and require-ments that are perceived as external and possibly unwelcome. Annemette expresses itin the following way in the interview: ‘No doubt, within teaching, there are manygood girls who do what they are told, right? And the learning issue is to say: “No, whatthe hell, we will do it this way”, the other way is not exactly our style’.

The more radical form of creativity, meaning opposition towards authority orexisting rules and regulations, seems to be difficult to achieve in a school systemwhich recruits many ‘good’ girls – and boys – as teachers. Søren, who is a teacher atthe upper level in secondary school, emphasises the experience of an increased focuson the measurement, accountability and public comparisons of grade levels in publicschools as a kind of surveillance that makes it difficult to insist on a form of teachingwhich may not lead to better evaluations:

Søren: At the upper level, we are measured by the grade level of our pupils. This isall new to us. The principal will check the grade point level. And if you have,let’s say, three classes, and the grade point level is high in two classes, but notin the third, then comes the question: ‘why is this one class not performing’?

Dorrit: Is that uncomfortable for you?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:02

28

Sept

embe

r 20

13

European Journal of Teacher Education 229

Søren: No, not at all, I am indifferent; there is a reason for everything. But the resultmay be that the spontaneity disappears, you do not suddenly build trianglesin the schoolyard or find Pythagoras’ theorem or something else. It disap-pears, because you become focused on theory and less on the practical side.And it is a fact that the creativity among pupils is more evident when wefocus on the practical aspects of teaching, because theory, and the mentalimages in theory, we cannot do them in mathematics.

Dorrit: Yes, but this is surely also an issue in primary school, where each pupil istested for reading capability and language skills and so on. And to be sure, itwas no surprise to find out that my class did not read very well. I mean, actas a substitute for one hour, and you will know why [laughter].

Søren: And we are not checked so we can perform better, that is what upsets me, it’sonly the reputation of the school that matters.

The teachers here are pointing at central dilemmas relating to the conditions whichfoster creativity. On the one hand, testing, measurements and the like can be experi-enced as external demands which do not really support the teaching in itself. Theyoften do not convey more than a substitute would observe within an hour in each class,as expressed by Dorrit. The comparison of grades at each school and within each classhave become part of the branding and marketing of the school to new customers, whiletheir effect on learning is less clear.

In the interview, Søren continues to underline the problem they face as teacherswhen external pressure on examination and control constrain a more practice-basedapproach to learning. When doing so, a greater number of pupils become part of the‘game’ of mathematics. One aspect of this problem is that, when making room for morepractice-based teaching, Søren often ‘trips on his own shadow’, because the alternativeof creative teaching forces him to spend more hours in preparation. The implicationof this dilemma is that the apparently easier or more convenient paper and pencil teach-ing often comes into the foreground. Likewise, in a recent article entitled ‘Productivelearning’, Dysthe and Lillejord (2008) outline how such learning can be compared withcreative learning. In their view, productive learning facilitates exploration, curiosity,experimenting and community-oriented learning. According to the authors, such learn-ing is becoming increasingly important in an age celebrating lifelong learning, criticalthinking and creative solutions to large-scale societal problems. If productive learningis promoted by practice-based teaching, such as mathematical problem-solving on thefootball ground, measuring lengths or calculating distances, or counting when bakingcakes in home economics, then the reduction of these activities to a more easily managedpaper-and-pencil mathematics in the classroom, do represent a threat to creative learningamong pupils. The stricter the notion of teaching, the less the latitude for alternativeand new ways of teaching (that is, teaching creatively) and the more narrow the spacefor new kinds of learning among pupils (that is, creative learning).

Conclusions and perspectives

In the above analysis and dialogues, we have witnessed four teachers’ informativediscussions about their conceptions, perceptions and experience of creativity. Theinterview is an opportunity to look briefly at how these discussions relate to the moregeneral theme of creativity within the literature on creativity research.

We can begin by considering the part of the interview in which Dorrit and Sørendiscuss the distinction between teaching creatively and/or ensuring creative learning

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:02

28

Sept

embe

r 20

13

230 L. Tanggaard

by the use of certain techniques and a departure from art-based approaches. Thisdebate is also described by Craft (2005) and Saywer (2004).

Saywer’s point is that it is not possible to teach competently without being creativeto some degree – which is exactly what Søren claimed as well. To be successful inteaching, where goals are difficult to achieve, and in which the demands of centrallydefined goals are more daunting than ever, teachers need to be creative. There can bea quest for constant improvisation, so as to resolve the dilemmas of teaching pupilswho may, for example, find mathematics very difficult. Furthermore, the everydayreality with its many externally defined requirements may require the same approach.

Craft (2005, 130) likewise emphasises that the teacher often needs to teach increative ways to ensure creative learning. As part of this process, Craft confirmsSaywer’s (2004) call for improvisation, dialogue and debate within activities aimed atteaching and learning. Teachers must lay the basis for pupil creativity, by themselvesacting as creative and reflective practitioners. Only through such behaviour will pupilsdiscover the true nature of creativity and how to be so themselves. Within suchdiscourse, it is not a sign of creativity in itself to use scissors and to work with artwithin the classroom, although this may certainly lead to creative outcomes. The mainpoint is that creativity is more of a problem-solving approach, a way of defining tradi-tions of living and part of the daily improvisational approach to handling everyday lifeand finding new solutions to life’s ubiquitous dilemmas.

The above may also point at a possible difference between the phenomenon of‘expressing oneself’ through painting, other kinds of arts or similar activities, withoutany other goal than cultivating or developing feelings and emotions, and the kind ofcreativity in which a product is given value, and those of great societal or historicalimportance are produced.

A sound and valid conclusion to the above discussion and debate is surely thepragmatic statement that what is necessary for the development of creativity withinschools and teaching is that teachers be creative themselves. That is, they must bewilling to experiment with their teaching whenever appropriate and in such a way thatdemonstrates to pupils how to work creatively. In such situations, pupils can ideallybe challenged to confront and engage in dialogue with the teacher and other pupilsand, through this process, find their own style – their way of confronting problems andproducing new things.

An insistence on the need for improvisation, for people who wish to be true profes-sionals, contrasts directly with tendencies (highlighted by Sawyer 2004), to reduceteachers to mere technicians administrating a series of centrally-defined procedures for(allegedly) good teaching and learning. Nevertheless, any teacher must be more thana technician, in the sense that unexpected situations in daily practice and inevitablechanges require a mastery of the art of improvisation, in accordance with the specificchallenges of the situation. Accordingly, there is a real dilemma between the demandthat teachers conform to centrally defined test systems, and the challenges facing oursociety in relation to bringing up pupils and students who dare to take risks, challengethe existing order and create something new. This is not to say that tests cannot promotecreativity (indeed they can) and teachers can use them in creative ways, but rather itidentifies a tension that needs to be taken seriously and acted upon. Frames, examina-tions, tests and other kinds of constraints, such as deadlines, can indeed enhance creativ-ity. Tests do not in themselves act as barriers to creativity, but the nature of the testmaterial, the types and content of tests or examinations, are extremely important to the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:02

28

Sept

embe

r 20

13

European Journal of Teacher Education 231

ultimate impact of the learning process. If tests are to facilitate pupil creativity, theymust, somewhat radically expressed, measure and evaluate the abilities of pupils tochange the existing order and, one way or another, create something new.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on anearlier version of the article.

Notes on contributorLene Tanggaard is professor of Educational Psychology at Aalborg University. Recent publi-cations include ‘The research interview as a dialogical context for the production of social lifeand personal narratives’ (Qualitative Inquiry, 2009, 15, no. 9) and (with S. Brinkmann),‘Towards an epistemology of the hand’ (Studies in Philosophy and Education, 2010, 29, no.3). See also: http://www.kommunikation.aau.dk/ansatte/lenet/index.html

References

Amabile, T.M. 1996. Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.Barbour, R. 2007. Doing focus groups. London: Sage.Craft, A. 2005. Creativity in schools – tensions and dilemmas. London: Routledge.Craft, A. 2008. Tensions in creativity and education. In Creativity, wisdom and trusteeship –

exploring the role of education, ed. A. Craft, H. Gardner, and G. Claxton, 16–34. ThousandOaks: Corwin Press.

Craft, A., H. Gardner, and G. Claxton. 2008. Nurturing creativity, wisdom, and trusteeship ineducation. In Creativity, wisdom and trusteeship – exploring the role of education, ed.A. Craft, H. Gardner, and G. Claxton, 1–13. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Cropley, A.J. 2008. Creativity in education and learning – a guide for teachers and educa-tors. London: Routledge.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1996. Creativity – flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.New York: Harper Perennial.

Fasko, D. 2000–2001. Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal 13, no. 3/4: 317–27.Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. Five misunderstandings about case study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12,

no. 2: 219–45.Glâveanu, V. 2010. Principles for a cultural psychology of creativity. Culture and Psychology

16, no. 2: 147–63.Jeffry, B., and A. Craft. In preparation. Teaching creatively and teaching for creativity:

Distinctions and relationships. Faculty of Education and Language Studies, The OpenUniversity. MK7 6AA.

Kvale, S., and S. Brinkmann. 2008. InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative researchinterviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lillejord, S., and O. Dysthe. 2008. Productive learning practice – a theoretical discussionbased on two cases. Journal of Education and Work 21, no. 1: 75–89.

Lindström, L. 2009. Produkt- og procesvurdering i kreativ virksomhed. In Kreativitetsfremmendelæringsmiljøer i skolen, ed. L. Tanggard, and S. Brinkmann, 151–70. Frederikshavn: DafoloForlag.

Mason, J.H. 2003. The value of creativity: The origins and emergence of a modern belief.Aldershot: Ashgate.

Moultrie, J., and A. Young. 2009. Exploratory study of organizational creativity in creativeorganizations. Creativity and Innovation Management 18, no. 4: 299–314.

Pope, R. 2005. Creativity – theory, history, practice. Oxon: Routledge.Saywer, R.K. 2004. Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation.

Educational Researcher 33, no. 2: 12–20

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:02

28

Sept

embe

r 20

13

232 L. Tanggaard

Schön, D.A. 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Smyth, J., and R. Hattam. 2002. Early school leaving and the cultural geography of high

schools. British Educational Research Journal 28, no. 3: 375–97.Sternberg, R.J. 2006. Introduction. In The international handbook of creativity, ed. J.C.

Kaufman, and R.J. Sternberg, 1–9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Tanggaard, L. 2009. The research interview as a dialogical context for the production of

personal narratives and social life. Qualitative Inquiry 15, no. 9: 1498–515.Tanggaard, L. 2010. Fornyelsens kunst. København: Akademisk forlag.Torrance, E.P. 1972. Can we teach children to think creatively? Journal of Creative

Behaviour 6: 114–43.Willis, P. 1977. How working class lads get working class jobs. Farnborough: Saxon House.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dea

kin

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

3:02

28

Sept

embe

r 20

13