creativity: a reaffirmation of its place in early childhood education

This article was downloaded by: [Laurentian University]On: 23 November 2014, At: 21:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

The Curriculum JournalPublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcjo20

Creativity: areaffirmation of itsplace in early childhoodeducationRoy Prentice aa Institute of Education, University ofLondonPublished online: 21 Oct 2010.

To cite this article: Roy Prentice (2000) Creativity: a reaffirmation of itsplace in early childhood education, The Curriculum Journal, 11:2, 145-158,DOI: 10.1080/09585170050045173

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585170050045173

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever asto the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcjo20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09585170050045173

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585170050045173

with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not beliable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation toor arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions ofaccess and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:24

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Creativity: a reaf�rmation ofits place in early childhood

educationROY PRE NTICE

Institute of Education, University of London

ABSTRACT

At a time when early years educators feel under increasing pressure from the govern-ment to adopt more formal approaches to learning, this article sets out to reaf�rm theimportance of developing each child’s creative capacity to the full. The point is madethat through the application of creative capacity a vital dimension of human intelli-gence is demonstrated. It is argued that creative growth is too often hampered by mis-understandings that continue to distort the relationship between creativity andeducation. Issues that are vital to the development of understanding about the natureof creativity are made explicit and the conditions most likely to promote creativethought and action are identi�ed. In the interest of clarity the term ‘early years’ willbe applied to children between the ages of three and eight in diverse educational set-tings.

KEY WORDS

creativity; early years education.

BACKGROUND

One of the terms essential to any understanding of education must bethat of creativity. . . . Isn’t the educated mind the creative mind? (Abbs,1989: 1)

Creativity is a complex and slippery concept. It has multiple meanings, andfor anyone writing about creativity in an educational context it is necessaryat the outset to acknowledge that an established, precise and universallyaccepted de�nition does not exist. There is broad acceptance that creativity

The Curriculum Journal Vol. 11 No. 2 Summer 2000 145–158

The Curriculum Journal ISSN 0958–5176 © 2000 British Curriculum Foundation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:24

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

involves in some way imaginative and inventive ways of thinking and doing,as a result of which something new comes into being. However, in an attemptto pin it down, creativity is often reduced to a series of super�cial sound bitesand simplistic slogans by politicians, policy-makers and the media. Withincreasing frequency the term is used in different settings and its promotionin �elds of endeavour as diverse as science, the arts, education, politics andbusiness is commonplace. A growing body of literature on the topic – muchof it developed from theories explored in the 1960s – reveals that what itmeans to be creative means different things to different people in differentcontexts. How is it possible that creativity has become so dif�cult to graspthat it remains open to such wide interpretation? One explanation is offeredby Perry (1987: 285) who says:

Whenever a word is frequently used in arguments trying to persuadepeople to believe some opinion or other, our mental twists and turns tomake the opinion plausible involve shifting from meaning to meaningwithout realizing it. This has happened to creativity on a grandscale. . . . For some it is the talisman to open the gate of a better world;for others the gate opens alright, but to confusion, formlessness, inco-herence and vague curricular content.

Given the situation that Perry describes it is hardly surprising that confusionsand contradictions cloud thinking about the role of creativity in educationand that as a result its impact on professional practice is limited.

The published recommendations of the government’s National AdvisoryCommittee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE, 1999) aretimely. Many of the ideas discussed in this report, if seriously addressed atlocal and national levels, would help to overcome the association of creativitywith the kind of incoherence, formlessness and vagueness to which Perryrefers.

Two constituencies, educators of young children and arts educators, haveargued strongly and consistently for a proper recognition of the value ofcreativity in education. It is regarded by many as potentially the most power-ful means through which all children have an opportunity ‘to open the gateof a better world’. It is central to cherished beliefs about childhood andexperiential learning that embody many of the ideas explored by in�uentialthinkers such as Froebel, Pestalozzi, Dewey and Bruner. However, in prac-tice, the effectiveness of commitments to such long-standing cherished beliefscan be identi�ed only in terms of the ‘indicators of their actual implemen-tation’ (Pollard and Tann, 1993: 61). Thus attention is drawn to the nature ofthe evidence that supports either a high level of match or mismatch betweenwhat people do and their declared beliefs.

It is unfortunate that the recent consultations related to the review ofDesirable Outcomes for the learning of three to � ve year olds (SCAA, 1996)

THE CURRICULUM JOURNAL Vol. 11 No. 2146

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:24

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and the revision of the National Curriculum for the year 2000 have done littleto raise awareness of the distinctive features of a creative approach to learn-ing. Too often the case for creativity is made either in general terms that dolittle more than assert that it is intrinsically a good thing for each individualto have a dose of, or more narrowly in instrumental terms that link it to theeconomy.

The wider impact of the National Literacy Strategy (DfEE, 1998) and theNational Numeracy Strategy (DfEE, 1999) is a fundamental shift in the viewof learning that underpins the early years curriculum. This in turn has had afar-reaching in�uence on government attitudes towards pre-school learning.In their promotion of ‘learning goals’ Margaret Hodge (the Schools’ Minis-ter) and Chris Woodhead (Chief Inspector of Schools) stated that ‘the dayswhen under-�ves were left to colour, cut and paste were over’ (Independent,1999). Fuelled by such simplistic declarations, growing disquiet about theinappropriateness of many learning experiences now advocated for three to� ve year olds is expressed by an increasing number of early years prac-titioners. It is felt by many that the experiences young children encounterhave become too narrow, too prescriptive; in short, impoverished. This viewis supported by Beetlestone (1998: 24) who says:

Creative tasks are often perceived to be of lesser importance thanreading, writing and number work. The 3Rs dominate classroomtime. . . . Yet, despite this, there is a call for more work on the basics, asif mere quantity of time will solve national or local shortcomings inliteracy and numeracy.

Concern is also voiced by Lord Puttnam – a member of the government’sSchool Standards Task Force – who claims, ‘too much emphasis on the 3Rscould squeeze creativity out of the classroom’ (Puttnam, 1998). The wider-ranging implications of the current approach to the 3Rs and testing in theearly years of education are explored by Ball (1999). He makes the point thatit is in danger of being counter-productive in the achievement of the govern-ment’s stated long-term aim: the development of a creative, learning society.

Thus there is a need to make explicit the range of skills, knowledge andunderstanding required to ground ideas about creativity in educational prac-tice. Only then, it is argued, can they convincingly inform curriculumdevelopment and pedagogy in different educational settings. The importanceof early learning as a basis for later learning is acknowledged, but tradition-ally this relationship is seen mainly in terms of preparing for successive stagesof schooling. It is now necessary for early years educators to articulate thesigni� cance of early learning in the wider context of lifelong learning. Theterm is well established – indeed it is in danger of being overused – but thisconcept (like creativity) remains vague; its full impact on the adult lives oftoday’s young learners is dif�cult to imagine. Of central importance is the

CREATIVITY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:24

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

initiation of young children into ways of learning that are most likely to equipthem with the creative capacity to make such imaginative leaps. Such a viewof learning is most likely to develop ‘those human capabilities appropriate foradaptation to conditions of radical and enduring uncertainty, unpredict-ability, challengeability and contestability’ (Barnett and Hallam, 1999: 142).

DAMAGING DICHOTOMIES

It is widely acknowledged that the creative development of a large numberof children and adults continues to be hampered by some fundamental mis-conceptions about creativity (NACCCE, 1999: 10). In an attempt to clarifyideas about creativity and their relevance to education, attention is drawnhere to a number of damaging dichotomies through which, it is argued, mis-understandings are perpetuated. A major problem stems from the strongassociation of creativity with the arts. Creativity is central to the arts andthrough their rich diversity unlimited possibilities and unique opportunitiesfor its development are available. However, the arts are not the exclusiveprovince of creativity; far from it. Sometimes the arts and creativity are dis-cussed in terms that suggest they are synonymous. This contributes to a rein-forcement of a false dichotomy between one �eld of human endeavour, thearts, in which creativity is regarded as being essential, and other �elds inwhich, by implication, it is not. From such a position it is easy to see howcreative expectations are often applied to particular ways of knowing, and tosome curriculum subjects and not to others.

It is not uncommon for an equally narrow approach to be used to identifypeople for whom the claim ‘creative’ is made. The notion that creative indi-viduals are in some way special, rare and unconventional is fuelled by roman-tic images of the artist as a bohemian genius and a casual use of terms such as‘talent’ and ‘giftedness’. It remains a widely held view that creativity residesfully formed in a small number of people. In short, a small minority of thepopulation is considered creative while the large majority is not. The workingmethodologies of highly creative individuals – particularly well-knownartists – are well documented (Ghiselin, 1952). Fascinating and informativeas such accounts are, the insights gained from studying the lives of excep-tionally creative individuals working at the frontiers of knowledge cannot beexpected to provide a model of creativity that is directly transferable to every-one. It is necessary for achievements to be understood within the contexts inwhich they are created. Central to this is the concept of originality. It is offundamental importance to make clear that to be classed as original anoutcome does not need to be ‘new to everyone, or, indeed, new to anyoneelse save the person who creates it’ (Storr, 1976: 11). The last category to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:24

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

which Storr refers reveals the personal signi� cance of learning experiencesthat generate outcomes of this order.

The rapidly changing nature of work and patterns of employment challengetraditional concepts of work and play that the current approach to the cur-riculum does much to perpetuate. In the context of a discussion about peda-gogy it is argued by Siraj-Blatchford (1999: 20) that ‘the popular distinctionthat has been made between “play” and “work” trivializes the issues’. Adichotomous relationship between outmoded views of work and play is nolonger sustainable in a society in which the boundaries between differentcategories of activity and modes of engagement are becoming increasingly �ex-ible. However, beyond the world of early learning some powerful stereotypespersist. Work is frequently regarded as a disciplined, demanding, rational,serious form of adult occupation while play is often characterized as a child-hood pursuit that is undisciplined, undemanding, intuitive and frivolous.

As new information communications technologies impact on every aspectof daily living the edges become blurred between work and non-work andbetween leisure and learning. So too do the boundaries between home,school, university and workplace become less clearly delineated. A combi-nation of sites – real and virtual – offers new, creative opportunities for indi-viduals to make imaginative connections between strands of their lives thatmight be identi� ed as leisure, learning and work. At different periods in aperson’s life there are likely to be changes in the balance of time devoted toeach of these strands. As the volume of information increases at an ever morerapid rate it will require of individuals increasing ingenuity to gain access torelevant information and to use it creatively to deepen understanding throughthe making of personal meaning.

It is widely recognized that the so-called ‘creative industries’ (that embracemusic, � lm, architecture, advertising and design businesses) make a vast andgrowing contribution to the economy and employ a rapidly expandingnumber of people (Smith, 1998). The business world needs to employ cre-ative people and ‘the creative professions will be the fastest growing sourceof new jobs between now and 2006’ (Independent, 1998a). As part of its driveto strengthen the economy through developments in this � eld the govern-ment established a Creative Industries Task Force with a membership thatspans the worlds of politicians, civil servants, and arts and design pro-fessionals. Sadly there would seem to be a dislocation between the explor-ation of ideas at this level and the vision of the future they support, and anunderstanding of the kind of school curriculum and approaches to teachingand learning through which such a vision is most likely to be realized.

Glaring contradictions exist between the government’s highly prescriptiveeducation policy as it applies to pre-school settings, primary schools andteacher education and its highly publicized promotion of a more creativesociety (‘Cool Britannia’). In a newspaper article entitled ‘Schools to teach


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:24

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

creativity’ (Independent, 1998b) the Secretary of State for Education declaredthat ‘Children should learn to be creative and artistic in schools.’ It is ironicthat his announcement about the establishment of a National Advisory Com-mittee on Creative and Cultural Education came only three weeks after hisdecision to allow a narrowing of the primary curriculum in order to placemore emphasis on English and mathematics. His more recent inexplicableclaim is that those critics of the government’s education policy who advocate‘creativity’ really subscribe to an ‘ill-disciplined, anything-goes philosophy’(Guardian, 1999).

It is curious that a government with a declared vision of a creative societyof self-motivated, lifelong learners, who move with con�dent ease betweendifferent modes of engagement in work, leisure and education, should haveimposed on young learners and teachers in training highly prescriptive andnarrow curricula. For the government to pursue a vision of a creative societythat is at odds with the kind of education system it is enthusiastically pro-moting is perhaps the ultimate damaging dichotomy.

THE NATURE OF CREATIVITY

From a wide range of literature, and other forms of evidence through whichit is possible to gain insight into the nature of the creative process, it isapparent that ‘relevant criteria but no de�nitive criteria’ exist for creativity(Fryer, 1996: 26). Relevant criteria include a sense of curiosity and wonder,inventiveness, � exibility, exploratory behaviour, imagination and originality.A capacity to take risks, to tolerate ambiguity and break boundaries, alongwith an openness to experience and a freshness of perception are also widelyregarded as fundamental features of creativity.

A useful working de�nition of creativity was devised by the NationalAdvisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education. In an attempt toprioritize inclusion (rather than perpetuate exclusion and elitism) creativityis characterized as: ‘Imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomesthat are both original and of value’ (NACCCE, 1999: 29).

This position af� rms that creativity is a capacity of human intelligence,rather than a subject or an event. As such it is seen as being multifaceted andcapable of being developed through different modes of communication andexpression and of being applied in a variety of contexts (Gardner, 1993). It isrelevant to everyone and to everyday life and embraces both individual andcollaborative activities. This de� nition brings into focus four key concepts,on which the following discussion elaborates.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:24

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Imaginative activity

As McKellar (1957: 1) points out, ‘The psychology of human imagination andthinking must necessarily take into account certain mental processes notalways regarded as “thought”.’ For those involved in the visual or perform-ing arts the term thinking in qualities is well understood. It is necessary forthe visual artist to think visually, while the musician thinks in terms of soundand the dancer thinks kinaesthetically. The evidence of sense impressions andintuitive responses are central dimensions of these processes, thus reaf�rm-ing how important insights into experience can be gained through ways ofhuman functioning other than linear, logical, rational patterns of behaviour(Claxton, 1997). Contrary to popular belief, it is precisely this mode of func-tioning that allows creative connections to be made in such � elds as science,technology, mathematics and business.

Whatever form imaginative activity takes it is always generative and leadsto an outcome that is original. For this to be achieved it is essential for theindividual to be engaged in ways of thinking or doing that allow unusual con-nections to be made between ideas, objects, materials and processes. Thisrequires a freshness of vision; a capacity to see familiar things from differentperspectives, to envisage alternatives, to break conventional boundaries andto transcend routines. Very often creative insights occur when existing ideas,objects, images or materials are combined to reveal new and unexpectedrelationships. Too often ways of thinking, perceiving and responding becomepredictable because they are context-bound. Ideas become dulled if they arebound to literal interpretations and denied opportunities for exploration at adeeper level through the use of analogy and metaphor.

In a variety of contexts attention has been drawn to different aspects of therelationship between play and imaginative activity. The point is made byStorr (1989: 69) that:

People who realize their creative potential are constantly bridging thegap between inner and outer. They invest the external world withmeaning because they disown neither the world’s objectivity nor theirown subjectivity. This interaction between inner and outer worlds iseasily seen when we observe children at play. Children make use of realobjects in the external world, but invest these objects with meaningswhich derive from the world of their own imagination.

In order to exploit the contribution of play to support the development ofcreativity it seems more appropriate to view play as an attitude and processrather than an activity. This shifts the focus away from play as a speci�c cat-egory of behaviour and towards the nature and quality of an individual’sengagements with ideas, feelings and materials. Playfulness can be viewed asan attitude of the mind (Dewey, 1934) that ‘survives play and becomes a


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:24

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

personality trait of the individual’ (Lieberman, 1977: 5) thus enabling con-nections to be made between play, imagination and creativity.

In the context of a post-modern research paradigm an acknowledgementof this relationship is regarded as important for the role it offers ‘the fantas-tic as a possible way of looking at the world’ (Paechter and Weiner, 1996: 269).By making explicit such ideas about the relationship between play and cre-ativity it is possible to challenge two damaging stereotypes. First, that play istrivial, the exclusive preserve of childhood to be replaced in adulthood by theserious concerns of work. Second, that play is somehow perceived by manyas a frivolous alternative to learning rather than a powerful vehicle for activelearning. It is true that with increasing age an individual’s opportunity tolearn through direct experience is very often replaced by given informationand received facts. Evidence gained through sense impressions is oftenmistrusted in favour of predetermined outcomes. Unfortunately, suchapproaches increasingly apply to the education of young children. Thus pre-scribed procedures and preconceived ideas squash the spirit of self-motivatedexploration fuelled by curiosity and, as a result, imaginative possibilities forlearning dwindle.

The production of outcomes

Creative activity involves making. An extended concept of making can beapplied here to embrace ways of thinking, through which new connectionsare made between ideas and practical activity through which ideas are givenform through a chosen medium. Progress is rarely linear and does notproceed at a regular pace towards a predetermined resolution. While thenature of the creative outcomes cannot be known at the outset, the activity –mental and practical – through which they evolve is purposeful, deliberateand driven by strong self-motivation. However, in the process of shaping andreshaping ideas and media it is necessary to remain open to unexpected possi-bilities, new opportunities and directions that could not have been envisagedbefore work commenced. This requires of the creator a sensitivity towardsemergent ideas and forms on the basis of which they are accepted, rejectedor modi�ed.

The quality of the interplay that evolves during the creative process is anal-ogous to conversational exchange. It is through this kind of reciprocalrelationship that ideas �ow and change. Central to creative behaviour is anability to evaluate from within the activity that which has come into beingthrough the activity. In the arts the nature of the dual role of creator and criticis well documented. A painter, Ben Shahn (1967: 49) describes the process ofpainting as being ‘both creative and responsive’. This dualism is described byReid (1969: 81) as ‘rhythmic alternation between the activity of making andenjoying critically and contemplatively what has been done’. Across all areas


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:24

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

of creative endeavour the importance of a dynamic interrelationship betweengenerative and evaluative modes of functioning is acknowledged (NACCCE,1999: 30).

Creative behaviour requires a willingness to tolerate ambiguity and acapacity to cope with a degree of uncertainty in order that situations remain� uid for suf� ciently long periods of time to allow alternative ideas and waysof working with materials to be explored. Risks have to be taken; sometimesdecisions lead to dead ends and failure is experienced. Destruction is an inte-gral part of this process and very often ‘the negative as well as the positive’has to be grasped to advance the work (Fryer, 1996: 62). Experiences of thisnature help to promote ‘learning dispositions’ that include concentration,perseverance and a determination to succeed (Siraj-Blatchford, 1999: 38).

Originality

The National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education pre-sents a model that usefully differentiates between three categories of origi-nality (NACCCE, 1999: 30). First, an individual’s work may be original inrelation to previous efforts. Second, it may be original in the context of a peergroup, and third, it may be uniquely original in terms of its contribution toknowledge in a particular �eld of human endeavour. Too often, achievementsat the level of the third category dominate debates about creativity at theexpense of developing understanding about the nature of achievements in theother two categories. It is through an acknowledgement of what it means tobe original in relation to the �rst and second categories that a more informedbasis for creativity as a function of general education is likely to become moresecurely established. It is also likely that by increasing opportunities foreveryone to develop their creative potential in different ways through day-to-day activities there will develop a greater number of individuals for whomthe peaks of creative output are possible.

Value

The value that is placed on the resolved outcome of a given creative activityrequires judgements to be made in relation to the declared intention. A vitalpart of this process is the ability of an empathetic adult to ‘tune in’ to a child’s(often �uctuating) intentions. Criteria, on the basis of which judgements aremade, will vary from one �eld of activity to another in order to address, forexample, the usefulness of an outcome in science or technology or the aes-thetic qualities of a work of art. Central to this process is an ability to makecritical evaluations. Attention has already been drawn to the vital role playedby an evaluative mode of functioning during the creative process, but herethe critical stance is that of ‘standing back in quiet re� ection’ (NACCCE,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:24

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

1999: 31) to consider the resolved outcome. This is a role adopted by thecreator and by others. Different evaluations are shared and judgements areopen to further modi� cation as a result of being shared over a period of time.At the heart of this re�ective dimension of the creative process lies a � uentuse of a critical language.

CONDITIONS FOR CREATIVITY

Having considered the nature of creativity and a number of misunderstand-ings that surround it, the conditions that are likely to maximize its develop-ment in education are now identi� ed.

For creativity to �ourish in an educational setting it is necessary for learn-ers to be actively involved in the process of their own learning. Accounts ofcreative behaviour in diverse situations all reinforce a fundamental feature:engagement. In her description of experiential learning Salmon (1995: 24)refers to it as a mode of learning in which ‘knowledge is not divorced fromknowers, where personal feeling, spontaneity and intuitive responses areencouraged’. By adopting this stance in relation to learning, adults are crucialin the support of young children’s creative development. Such adults areaware that we each construct and successively reconstruct our personal viewof the world through the nature and quality of the relationships we developwith ideas, people, events and the material world. From an early age childrenneed to be presented with rich opportunities to engage with the world indifferent ways, to enable imaginative connections to be made between pastand present experience. They also need to be taught how to re�ect upon themfrom unfamiliar perspectives. At a time when the required approach to liter-acy in schools is highly mechanistic Salmon’s comments are echoed by Meek(1991), who draws attention to the creative essence of the process of reading.She says:

reading to learn what is known must include the habit of freshly won-dering; knowledge must be reconstituted by the learner. Turning schoolknowledge, the content of books, into action knowledge is a functionof critical literacy, the habit of re�ection. (Meek 1991: 170)

Central to this process are general skills that are central to creativity, irre-spective of the �eld of endeavour; they are enquiry, re�ection and criticism.

For young children the stimulus for creative activity is very often the directmanipulation of materials and objects. At the commencement of an activitychildren need to be guided and supported to maximize opportunities toexplore the creative potential of unfamiliar materials and ideas. They requireencouragement, to increase con�dence to be inventive, and suf�cient time to‘play with ideas’ and to ‘toy with materials’. Eisner (1998: 14) captures this


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:24

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

exploratory phase vividly using ‘metaphors such as “getting a feel” for theprocess and “getting in touch” ’. By allowing time to be devoted to thisexperimental stage children develop con�dence in their abilities to direct thecourse of their activities and further de�ne their purpose. However, it isessential that children acquire appropriate technical skills and a secure know-ledge base in order to underpin sustained activity. This requires a subtle shiftaway from the freedom that is necessary for experimentation towards greatercontrol over ideas, materials, tools and processes through the organization ofwhich intentions are realized. Throughout activities of this kind, childrenrequire the empathetic support of adults who understand the unpredictablepace of progress and the ‘messy’ nature of creative thought and action. Amajor challenge for early years educators is to devise ways of sustaining chil-dren’s engagement in tasks for suf� ciently long periods of time for creativemodes of functioning to stand a chance of being developed. Young childrenencounter in rapid succession a vast number of often super�cial and �eetingexperiences. In order to function creatively in any �eld it is necessary toengage with experience in greater depth in order that it can be assimilated,understood and used (Siraj-Blatchford, 1999: 39).

The conditions that best support the development of creativity positivelyencourage the coexistence of alternatives. By supporting the development ofa range of different responses to a given starting point the value of individualinterpretation is reinforced as being central to learning. Such an approachrelies on re�ned critical judgements about the degree of appropriateness,relevance or effectiveness displayed by different outcomes of an activity.Equally valid ways of pursuing an idea, or of giving form to an idea, can bejusti� ed in terms of context-speci� c criteria. About the development of suchcritical and evaluative skills Buchanan (1995: 42) says:

Enhancing pupils’ ability to be critical requires not only enough timeto be allocated to evaluate activity in which judgements are made, dis-cussed and modi�ed, but also the creation of a suitably supportivelearning environment in which the expression of personal feelings,points of view, tentative judgements and emotional responses is sociallyacceptable and safe.

Within a broad-based curriculum alternative ways of demonstrating theircreative potential are available to children. They are able to build upontheir individual strengths and known interests if supported by creativeadults. Creative adults have in common what might be termed ‘culturalcuriosity’. They continue to be self-motivated learners who value the cre-ative dimensions of their own lives and understand how creative connectionscan be made between their personal responses to experience and theirteaching.

All teachers use representations through which subject content is


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:24

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

transformed into teaching material, but it is possible to identify qualitativedifferences in the representations chosen by teachers who function from astrong knowledge base. Such teachers reveal a deeper understanding rootedin concepts, principles and issues. As a result they are able to adopt a more�exible and creative pedagogical style that is ‘open to children’s ideas, con-tributions, questions and comments’ (Aubrey, 1994: 5). Imaginative connec-tions are more likely to be explored between ideas and media and suchteaching is less likely to perpetuate stereotyped ways of thinking and behav-ing. In short, creative teachers demonstrate a capacity to generate alternativesthrough which the conditions are created for learners to function creatively.

CONCLUSION

Creativity, when developed as a multifaceted function of education, is apowerful capacity of human intelligence. All children are entitled to aneducation that fosters vital learning dispositions that include perseverance,self-motivation, �exibility and adaptability, through which they are able tosustain, in adulthood, creative ways of thinking and behaving. Through cre-ative thought and action individuals are able to make imaginative connectionsbetween present experience and future possibilities; between who they areand who they might become. In this sense, creativity is the means throughwhich everyone has an opportunity ‘to open the gate of a better world’(Perry, 1987: 285). Having gained access to a ‘better world’ in the twenty-�rstcentury, the rapid acceleration of social and technological change will makenew demands on human resourcefulness. Children will need to ‘acquire newknowledge, solve new problems and employ creativity and critical thinkingin the design of new approaches to existing problems or, indeed, to new ones’(Noss and Pachler, 1999: 200). The changes required in current practice forthis to be achieved will require the strong commitment of creative early yearseducators who demonstrate through their teaching a high level of culturalcuriosity.

REFERENCES

Abbs, P. (1989) A is for Aesthetic: Essays on Creative and Aesthetic Education. Lewes:Falmer Press.

Aubrey, C. (ed.) (1994) The Role of Subject Knowledge in the Early Years of Schooling.London: Falmer Press.

Ball, S. (1999) ‘Labour, learning and the economy’. Cambridge Journal of Education29(2): 195–204.

Barnett, R. and Hallam, S. (1999) ‘Teaching for supercomplexity: a pedagogy for


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:24

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

higher education’. In Mortimore, P. (ed.) Understanding Pedagogy and its Impacton Learning. London: Paul Chapman Publishing; 137–54.

Beetlestone, F. (1998) Creative Children, Imaginative Teaching. Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press.

Buchanan, M. (1995) ‘Making art and critical literacy: a reciprocal approach’. InPrentice, R. (ed.) Teaching Art and Design. London: Cassell; 29–49.

Claxton, G. (1997) Hare Brain, Tortoise Mind. London: Fourth Estate.Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1998) The National Literacy

Strategy: Framework for Teaching. London: HMSO.Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1999) The National Numeracy

Strategy: Framework for Teaching Mathematics from Reception to Year 6.Sudbury: DfEE.

Dewey, J. (1934) Art as Experience. New York: Putnam Capricorn Books.Eisner, E. (1998) ‘Does experience in the arts boost academic achievement?’. Art

Education 51(1): 7–15.Fryer, M. (1996) Creative Teaching and Learning. London: Paul Chapman Publish-

ing.Gardner, H. (1993) Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Ghiselin, B. (ed.) (1952) The Creative Process. New York: New American Library.Guardian (1999) ‘Blunkett and Blair rail at “elitist” critics’, 20 July.Independent (1998a) ‘More artists than artisans in Britain by year 2006’, 16 April.Independent (1998b) ‘Schools to teach creativity’, 5 February.Independent (1999) ‘First reading steps should start at three?’, 23 June.Lieberman, J. N. (1977) Playfulness – Its Relationship to Imagination and Creativity.

New York: Academic Press.McKellar, P. (1957) Imagination and Thinking. London: Cohen & West.Meek, M. (1991) On Being Literate. London: The Bodley Head.National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (1999) All Our

Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education, Report of the National AdvisoryCommittee on Creative and Cultural Education. Sudbury: DfEE.

Noss, R. and Pachler, N. (1999) ‘The challenge of new technologies: doing old thingsin a new way, or doing new things?’. In Mortimore, P. (ed.) UnderstandingPedagogy and its Impact on Learning. London: Paul Chapman Publish-ing; 159–211.

Paechter, C. and Weiner, G. (1996) Editorial, British Educational Research Journal22(3): 267–71.

Perry, L. (1987) ‘The educational value of creativity’. Journal of Art and DesignEducation 6(3): 285–96.

Pollard, A. and Tann, S. (1993) Re�ective Teaching in the Primary School. London:Cassell.

Puttnam, D. (1998) ‘Puttnam fears for arts’. Independent, 10 April.Reid, L. R. (1969) Meaning in the Arts. London: Allen & Unwin.Salmon, P. (1995) ‘Experiential learning’. In Prentice, R. (ed.) Teaching Art and

Design. London: Cassell.School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA) (1996) Nursery Education:

Desirable Outcomes for Childrens’ Learning on Entering Compulsory Education.London: SCAA and DfEE.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:24

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Shahn, B. (1967) The Shape of Content. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Siraj-Blatchford, I. (1999) ‘Early childhood pedagogy: practice, principles and

research’. In Mortimore, P. (ed.) Understanding Pedagogy and its Impact onLearning. London: Paul Chapman Publishing; 20–45.

Smith, C. (1998) Creative Britain. London: Faber & Faber.Storr, A. (1976) The Dynamics of Creation. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Storr, A. (1989) Solitude. London: Flamingo.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:24

23

Nov

embe

r 20

14

creativity: a reaffirmation of its place in early childhood education

Documents