Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T19:58:04.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Learning for Creativity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

R. Keith Sawyer
Affiliation:
Washington University in St. Louis, USA
Ronald A. Beghetto
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
James C. Kaufman
Affiliation:
California State University, San Bernardino
Get access

Summary

Most educators believe that creativity and the arts should be an important part of the school day. But the arts have been struggling to hold their place in the curriculum. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, with its mandatory annual testing on math and reading, has increased pressure on schools to demonstrate that their students are proficient in math and reading. Low math and reading scores in some school districts have led to an increasing emphasis on teaching these basic skills. When these pressures are combined with tight budgets, as is often the case in districts with high percentages of underprivileged students, administrators often choose to dedicate a larger percentage of the budget to math and literacy instruction. In exchange, the amount invested in arts education is reduced or removed completely.

It is ironic that the arts are losing their place in school curricula while creativity is increasingly in demand around the globe. In the last several decades, many of the world's most developed countries have shifted from an industrial economy to a knowledge economy (e.g., Bell, 1973; Drucker, 1993). Scholars of the knowledge age have argued that creativity, innovation, and ingenuity are more important today than ever before. Florida (2002) argued that “we now have an economy powered by human creativity” (pp. 5–6) and that human creativity is “the defining feature of economic life” (p. 21). Two recent best-selling books have extended Florida's argument to the international arena.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Azmitia, M. (1996). Peer interactive minds: Developmental, theoretical, and methodological issues. In Baltes, P. B. & Staudinger, U. M. (Eds.), Interactive minds: Life-span perspectives on the social foundation of cognition (pp. 133–162). New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A task-specific approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, D. (1973). The coming of the post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berliner, D. C. (1987). Ways of thinking about students and classrooms by more and less experienced teachers. In Calderhead, J. (Ed.), Exploring teachers' thinking (pp. 60–83). London: Cassell Education Limited.Google Scholar
Berliner, D. C., & Tikunoff, W. J. (1976). The California beginning teacher study. Journal of Teacher Education, 27(1), 24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 473–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M., & Edelson, D. C. (2001, April). Teaching by design: Curriculum design as a lens on instructional practice. Presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Burnaford, G. (2007). Arts integration frameworks, research, & practice: A literature review. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership.Google Scholar
,Business Roundtable. (2005). Tapping America's potential: The education for innovation initiative. Washington, DC: Business Roundtable.Google Scholar
Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency: A study of the social forces that have shaped the administration of the public schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Cornett, C. E. (1999). The arts as meaning makers: Integrating literature and the arts throughout the curriculum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
,Council on Competitiveness. (2005). Innovate America: National innovation initiative summit and report. Washington, DC: Council on Competitiveness.Google Scholar
Craft, A., Cremin, T., & Burnard, P. (Eds.). (2008). Creative learning 3–11: And how we document it. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham Books.
Craft, A., Jeffrey, B., & Leibling, M. (Eds.). (2001). Creativity in education. London: Continuum.
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York: Perigree Books.Google Scholar
Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: HarperBusiness.Google Scholar
Efland, A. D. (2002). Art and cognition: Integrating the visual arts in the curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Eisner, E. W. (1982). Cognition and curriculum: A basis for deciding what to teach. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Eisner, E. W. (2002a). The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Eisner, E. W. (2002b). What can education learn from the arts about the practice of education? In The encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/biblio/eisner_arts_and_the_practice_or_education.htm.
Erickson, F. (1982). Classroom discourse as improvisation: Relationships between academic task structure and social participation structure in lessons. In Wilkinson, L. C. (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom (pp. 153–181). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class and how it's transforming work, life, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1973). The arts and human development: A psychological study of the artistic process. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (2007). Five minds for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Getzels, J. W. (1987). Creativity, intelligence, and problem finding: Retrospect and prospect. In Isaksen, S. G. (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research (pp. 88–102). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.Google Scholar
Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. The American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guilford, J. P. (1970). Creativity: Retrospect and prospect. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 4(3), 149–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilford, J. P. (1971). Some misconceptions regarding measurement of creative talents. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 5, 77–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. New York: Teacher's College Press.Google Scholar
Hetland, L., & Winner, E. (2004). Cognitive transfer from arts education to non-arts outcomes: Research evidence and policy implications. In Eisner, E. W. & Day, M. D. (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 135–162). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. M. (2007). Studio thinking: The real benefits of visual arts education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Kogan, N. (2002). Careers in the performing arts: A psychological perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 14(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moga, E., Burger, K., Hetland, L., & Winner, E. (2000). Does studying the arts engender creative thinking? Evidence for near but not far transfer. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4), 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, M. T. (1993). Implications of problem finding on teaching and learning. In Isaksen, S. G., Murdock, M. C., Firestien, R. L., & Treffinger, D. J. (Eds.), Nurturing and developing creativity: The emergence of a discipline (pp. 51–69). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
,OECD. (2004). Innovation in the knowledge economy: Implications for education and learning. Paris: OECD Publications.Google Scholar
Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pink, D. H. (2005). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. New York: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In Kuhn, D. & Siegler, R. S. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, 5th ed., Vol. 2: Cognition, perception, and language (pp. 679–744). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (1998). The interdisciplinary study of creativity in performance. Creativity Research Journal, 11(1), 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2000). Improvisation and the creative process: Dewey, Collingwood, and the aesthetics of spontaneity. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 58(2), 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2001). Creating conversations: Improvisation in everyday discourse. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2003a). Emergence in creativity and development. In Sawyer, R. K., John-Steiner, V., Moran, S., Sternberg, R., Feldman, D. H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (Eds.), Creativity and development (pp. 12–60). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2003b). Improvised dialogues: Emergence and creativity in conversation. Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2006a). Analyzing collaborative discourse. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 187–204). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2006b). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2006c). The schools of the future. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 567–580). New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Schramm, S. L. (2002). Transforming the curriculum: Thinking outside the box. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Dess, N. K. (2001). Creativity for the new millennium. American Psychologist, 56(4), 332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strokrocki, M. (Ed.). (2005). Interdisciplinary art education: Building bridges to connect disciplines and cultures. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Torrance, E. P. (1965). Rewarding creative behavior: Experiments in classroom creativity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press/Ginn.Google Scholar
Wallach, M. A. (1971). The intelligence/creativity distinction. New York: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
Wallach, M. A. (1988). Creativity and talent. In Gr⊘nhaug, K. & Kaufmann, G. (Eds.), Innovation: A cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 13–27). Oslo: Norwegian University Press.Google Scholar
Winner, E. (1982). Invented worlds: The psychology of the arts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Winslow, L. (1939). The integrated school art program. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×