Key to a Paperless Classroom.

The MOOCs and  e-portfolios.

ABSTRACT.

Digital tools are increasingly being used to support teaching in higher education. These tools place new demands on the tasks and responsibilities of the teacher, and can influence teacher roles. In this study we investigate the long-term use and development of a tool for facilitating the negotiation of meaning in argumentative student texts, through teacher and peer feedback. From this setting new teacher roles have emerged.

Teacher roles are acted out in concert with the conditions and characteristics of a teaching-learning environment (Entwistle, McCune & Hounsell, 2002). The conditions for teaching in higher education in Norway and elsewhere are being increasingly influenced by the use of digital tools for pedagogical purposes, and governmental strategic planning documents express high expectations about the positive effects that technology will have on teaching and learning (Norwegian Public Reports, 2000). The research reported in this paper explores the consequences of this development on teachers roles, specifically how a digital tool embedded in a context for teaching in higher education contributes to changing the conditions for teaching and the roles of the teachers.

Keywords:

Teacher roles, Higher education, Communities of practice, Teaching-learning environment, Digital tools.

Introduction

The teacher roles are embedded in a teaching-learning environment, of which the digital tool is a partial constituent. Several interrelated aspects constitute these environments, and thus are part of the conditions for carrying out the role of the teacher. Fjuk and Ludvigsen (2001) give examples of the aspects that can be seen as forming the poles for interconnections in a distributed collaborative learning environment:

“... theories of learning and instruction, subject domains, teacher’s roles, delivery institution's educational praxis and tradition, organisational and administrative arrangements, costs, properties of ICT (information- and communication technology) and available software, geographical distances between co-learners, etc. Any changes associated with one of these aspects will inevitably influence and change the others.” (Fjuk & Ludvigsen, 2001, p. 237, italics in original).

The MOOC-- ePortfolio.

The IT revolution that was supposed to transform higher education has failed to materialize, at least in the way we had imagined it. The revolution did occur, but not directly within higher education--instead, it changed the overall nature of work in our culture. And now, higher education seems to be behind the curve, struggling to catch up. Enter the MOOC a relatively new buzzword meaning Massive Open Online Course.  And it holds hope for many as a way for higher education to "catch up." Indeed, MOOCs could be one way to get ahead of the curve again, or, they could become a yet another material threat to higher education. Here's how to turn this "threat" into something much more positive.
As a shockingly sudden phenomenon, MOOCs are really only one symptom of openness, the general effect of digital technologies making information and knowledge ubiquitous, universal, and in many cases free. Enrolling millions of students worldwide  "How Free Online Courses Are Changing the Traditional Liberal Arts Education," a PBS Newshour report from January 8, 2013.

Does make the MOOCs seem like a threat to the higher education establishment (except for those institutions offering them). But to learners everywhere, MOOCs seem to open the door to learning opportunities undreamed of just a few years ago. Wherever there is broadband connectivity, people anywhere in the world can sign up for courses offered by faculty from some of the most prestigious universities in the world. Are we seeing pent-up demand at a massive scale. Still, there are valid questions: 
Are students really learning? and from what could seem merely a very, very large lecture hall?  

If they are learning by participating in MOOCs, how can we know that? And how can that learning be better documented and visible?

Students in MOOCs may take tests and may have some contact with other students and with a mentor, but to say that anyone knows these students as much as a professor does in a traditional setting is a real stretch. 
MOOCs offer great lecturers, there are social dimensions to the MOOC experience, good graphics, shorter segments of learning for better grasp, and so on, but we are left with huge questions.

Would MOOCs be massive if they were not free? 

What do we conclude from the very low completion rate?

And, how can MOOC enrollees receive recognition of their learning from a formal degree-granting institution? 

E-Portfolios: 

The Quiet Revolution We turn to a now familiar technology electronic portfolios. Quietly, especially over the past five years, electronic portfolio use has been spreading in higher education both in the U.S. and internationally. The ePortfolio industry is booming. In the U.S., thousands of colleges and universities are using ePortfolios to enhance learning, to move from teaching to learning, to make learning more active, to help redesign programs, to improve student employability, and to address accountability demands.
In other words, ePortfolios are now part of the enterprise for many or most institutions. A major benefit of ePortfolios is that they allow learners to collect evidence of their learning in the classroom, of their work in team projects, and of their work outside of the classroom. And, of course, they may be used to collect evidence from any learning experience. ePortfolios stay with the learner, so learners have a persistent record of their achievements and competencies. Learners enrolled in MOOCs would increase the value of their experience by using an ePortfolio. ePortfolio accounts are available for individuals anywhere; the ePortfolio providers host the functionality and data on their own servers. Many ePortfolio providers also offer mobile apps, so a smart phone is sufficient in many cases to capture evidence and to upload the evidence to the ePortfolio. What kind of evidence? Both the learner and others who might see the ePortfolio want some kind of meaningful record of the learning experience. If a MOOC involves active learning, then photos or video clips or audio clips could record the activity. An audio clip can also be a spoken reflection on the active learning. If the MOOC provides opportunities for social interaction with other participants, then the learner and his/her team can work within an ePortfolio system, in the group work module. And who would look at and evaluate the evidence? Aside from employers, who do increasingly value ePortfolios for hiring, others who might look at the evidence are colleges and universities that have staff dedicated to "assessment of prior learning." [See Learning Counts, for example, or CAEL for more on assessment of prior learning. 

Assessment of prior learning or "recognition of prior learning" is an emerging global phenomenon. Aside from helping to get credit for the learning accomplished in a MOOC by the assessment of prior learning route, ePortfolios can also expand the learning within the ePortfolio itself. Being able to look back at your own work in your ePortfolio and then integrate that work, or assess it, or see your own changes over time, is in itself a learning experience. MOOC learning, or any kind of learning, can be extended by reflection within an ePortfolio. What Does "Taming" Mean? Getting back to the title of this article, "The Taming of the MOOC With ePortfolio Evidence," you might ask, what does "taming" mean? It could seem that MOOCs are wild, unpredictable, and dangerous to educational institutions. 

However, to the extent that ePortfolio evidence can close the loop by bringing the MOOC learner back into the educational establishment through assessment of the ePortfolio evidence, the "wild" energy of MOOCs can be turned to the benefit of educational institutions. Electronic portfolios are native to openness: They stay with the learner, they are in the cloud, and the technology has become wondrously capable and intuitive. MOOCs are one manifestation of our era of openness in which learning opportunities are almost infinite. MOOCs need ePortfolios to improve their value. It might have seemed a short while ago that a learner could only get an ePortfolio account when enrolled at an institution. Today, however, some ePortfolio providers, perhaps a majority of them, offer individual accounts. Or, of course, the MOOC organizations could, themselves, arrange for ePortfolio accounts for their enrollees, with the enrollees paying for their ePortfolio accounts. It will seem odd if they don't do this. There's no doubt MOOCs have arrived massively. The challenge has become how to "see" the learning in a MOOC, how to assess it, and how to credential it. If MOOC organizations add ePortfolio opportunities, MOOC learning can be more valuable, more permanent, and more useful. Educators and learners everywhere will benefit from the continued spread of ePortfolios and the concurrent spread of ePortfolio wisdom about best uses of ePortfolios. ePortfolio technologies remain as a transformative, anticipatory technology. And now, they can help "tame" the flood of openness and educational opportunity as MOOCs and other new modalities arise.

  'Basic ePortfolios and Skitch  is a remarkable app that allows students to annotate over images.'

One of the challenges I faced was taking a character analysis chart and and transforming it into the digital, cloud-based world so students can interact with the content anywhere. Since the chart contained a table, Google Docs mobile was out, because the table feature is not available yet on the iPad.  We brainstormed several alternatives including Pages, Notability, and Doceri, but settled on Skitch since it allowed students to type on the image, size it easily, save to a camera roll, and can be uploaded to Google Drive.

Step 1:  Getting the image to Skitch:

First I tried to take a picture of the paper and import it into Skitch. The quality was of the image ok, but I was not quite satisfied.  There had to be an even better solution,  and I found it!

On the computer, I copied the chart from Word (edità Select All-> Copy)  to a PowerPoint slide (New Slide à Paste) and saved the slide as an image, a JPEG. I passed this on to the students.

To Save a PowerPoint Slide as an image do the following:

On the computer, I copied the chart from Word (edit→ Select All-> Copy)  to a PowerPoint slide (New Slide → Paste) and saved the slide as an image, a JPEG. Again I passed this on.

Step 2: Editing and Saving the Image:

The kids saved the image into their camera roll on the iPad, then opened Skitch, and imported the image.  Each student added information to the chart daily and saved the image to the camera roll at the end of the class period. 

Assessment.

The classroom workflow for the week was for, students to open Skitch, import their edited image from the previous day, and keep adding content. Students saved it to the camera roll and e-mailed the completed chart to me for grading.  

Fig 1 learning the future way.

Every child matters and SEN

DIFFERENTIATION ( The very able child on the autistic spectrum-test. )

Statement of Focus:

Many schools teach in mixed ability groupings across the curriculum, both at Key ‘Stage 3 and 4.  In others, Core subjects may be taught in ability sets, whilst Foundation subjects are taught in mixed ability groups.  Government policy is for “inclusion” wherever possible, for those with physical disabilities, and, more relevant to this essay, for pupils with learning difficulties.  This essay will explore the issue of differentiation in the classroom and whole-school context, specifically for the very able pupil who is on the autistic spectrum.  Such cases may be rare, but present a real challenge to the teacher.  However, very able pupils are to be found in most mixed ability classes to varying levels, and pupils with Asberger Syndrome (on the Autistic spectrum) or Autistic, are not uncommon in secondary schools and deserve the understanding necessary to help them learn and progress as every other child in school.  In current parlance “Every Child Matters” and schools are expected to have policies in place on this issue.  In the words of Ian Gilbert (Gilbert 2002: 29), `each child should be encouraged to do the best it can without reference to any other child.’  The questions arising are:

• What strategies can be employed to stretch very able pupils.

• Are schools equipped to help pupils with complex needs.

• Can teachers cope with the personalised learning needed.

The Personal Inspiration for this Focus
The pupil I shadowed for one day, and whom I shall refer to as Z for protection purposes, is known to be on the Autistic spectrum, with Asberger Syndrome.  He also has a very high IQ.  However, this is coupled with a very poor writing ability, well below his numerical age.  According to school staff, he is a kinetic, (or kinaesthetic) learner, preferring to move about and work into materials than sit and endure didactic teaching and writing.  Despite his poor writing ability, Z exhibited his high IQ in several other ways whilst I shadowed him; he communicated well, liking to give his strong opinions (always seeing things in a very black and white way and unable to accommodate other points of view) in discussion, responding to issues and questions slowly and thoughtfully.  He picked up key words quickly and was able to use them verbally.  In maths he had already worked out formulae in his head before the teacher had explained them; similarly, in History, although failing to read well (avoiding it if possible) or write things down, he worked out the codes the group were asked to decipher quickly and easily in his head and instructed the others in his group on the answers so he could avoid writing them down – the others did that for him.  Z’s body language was expressive, but he lacked facial and tonal expression, disliking group games or activities.  (See Appendix 1).

Z clearly displayed the following learning characteristics of a gifted pupil as defined by the dfes:

• Be  verbally fluent for their age.

• Give quick verbal responses.

• Prefer verbal to written activities.

• Be logical.

• Have an ability to work things out in their head very quickly.

• Have strong ideas and opinions.

• Focus on their own interests rather than what is being taught.

• Be easily bored by what they perceive as routine tasks.

• Not necessarily well-behaved or well-liked by others
(www.standards.dfes.gov.uk: 2007)

In summary, Z is a quick thinker, showing what Howard Gardner, in his theories on `multiple intelligences’ (Gardner 1983) identified as `Logical/Mathematical Intelligence’, defined by Brooks, Abbott and Bills (2004) as `the ability to use reason, logic and numbers.  These learners think conceptually in logical and numerical patterns, making connections between pieces of information.  They ask lots of questions and like to do experiments.’

Findings:

Z provides us with a conundrum – highly intelligent, yet with specific learning difficulties (SLD).  Our secondary schools have Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators (SENCOs) with an infrastructure of support for pupils with learning difficulties.  More recently, since 1999 when a House of Commons Select Committee report `Highly Able Children’ was complied, attention has been focused on `gifted and talented’ pupils. The government, supported by many educationalists, felt these pupils had not been stretched enough academically in the past and had been let down by the school system.  There is no doubt that SEN departments in schools perform a much needed and very worthy function; however, for pupils like Z, do our SEN systems become chains to bind, not life-enhancing experiences?  In an article in the Times Educational Supplement, Professor John MacBeath acknowledges that, despite a growing acceptance of Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory, most schools are unable (or unwilling) to support it practically.  He writes:

Imagine a school ….. which really understands and nurtures the unique

           intelligences profile of each individual child, each with areas of great potential

           strength and learning difficulties. (MacBeath 1997)

He goes on to point out:

Gardner has studied creative, exceptional minds.  All of his exceptional minds

           were singularly deficient in some areas and played to their strengths in one or

           two others.  Many great thinkers  and inventors were abysmal failures at school.

           …people will look back … and laugh at the “uniform school”, which thought it

           could teach the  same things to all children at the same time and in the same

           way.    (MacBeath 1997)

This, I believe, lies at the heart of differentiation; all people, for a multiplicity of reasons are different and learn best in a particular way.  John Wooden, an American basketball coach, puts it another way:
 

           There is nothing wrong in striving for an `A’ mark and wanting to win a contest,

           but we must face the fact that we are not all created equally as far as mental and

           physical ability is concerned, we are not all raised in the same environment, we

           will not all have the same foundation in English or in athletics and we will not all

           have the same facilities with which to work.  (Wooden cited in Gilbert 2002: 31-

           32)

This is all very well, of course, but some classes may have 30+ mixed ability learners in them, so we have to look for more generic solutions in most cases.  For rarities like Z, a realistic and achievable whole-school framework for his specific development needs to be constructed and applied appropriately by individual subject areas.  This is time consuming for teachers and has a knock-on effect on the rest of the class, who may resent the `special’ treatment of one of its members.

For the majority of gifted and talented pupils, schools have explored various strategies with some success.  In order to progress, pupils need to feel comfortable with what they know already – prior knowledge – and accept the challenge of the new.  Those who are particularly able will not only accept this challenge, but welcome it and enjoy it, even pressing the teacher to push them further.  `Gifted and talented pupils need to be given opportunities to study some, or all, subjects to a greater depth and breadth and, sometimes, at a faster pace,’ (www,teachernet,gov.uk: 2007).

The difficulty of the high ability learner is that of being accepted by their peers, and it is an often recorded phenomenon that able pupils purposely underachieve to gain acceptance. Feeling `different’ to their peers can affect pupils’ self esteem and self-confidence. This is a separate, but interesting issue, however.  The challenge of learning for the most able, is to take risks, apply their existing knowledge and `experience the thrill of being discoverers’ (Overall & Sangster, 2007: 78).  They may extend their learning empirically or through research, or through problem solving situations.  Whilst all pupils should be challenged to progress, the most able need to do this at a higher level than other pupils in the class.  They will tackle a problem in considerably more depth than most, `where pupils are following a common curriculum but the most  able use more challenging resources and are asked questions that  require higher levels of thinking’ (www.teachernet.gov.uk: 2007).  This can make their work at first glance seem to develop more slowly than some, but less able pupils will be working at a more superficial level.  The least able will often `complete’ a task in a very short time and be asking for something else to do.
Some Professional Solutions
Experienced staff, on being questioned, felt the need to produce a number of short, sharp tasks for the less able to keep their focus on a topic, especially when the middle ability range and the most able would be concentrating more fully and developing more searching solutions to problems offered to them.  The potential pitfall of `boredom’ is an important one to avoid and this seems to occur at both ends of the ability spectrum; lower ability pupils experience boredom because they lack understanding of the issues and topics presented to them and, whilst TAs are invaluable in this respect, there are financial restraints in education which mean that TAs are in rather short supply.  The able pupils in classes of mixed ability either grasp concepts, techniques  and facts easily, or know about them already.  In either case, a bored pupil is the outcome without extra provision.   This seemed to be the case in most subject areas, including (or most particularly) the more `creative’ subjects.

To have a high level of ability is nothing without self motivation to go hand in hand with it.  `No-one reaches the top of their chosen field simply by having talent.  Studies of people who have become outstanding performers almost invariably show that the common factor in all their lives has been a high degree of motivation.’ (Leyden 2002: 53)  In differentiating by task, by teacher input or even by outcome, the teacher must inspire and motivate for the learning to have any impact or meaning, even, or especially, to the  most able.  Their abilities must be carefully nurtured and provided with challenge at every stage of their education
One teacher interviewed provided pupils with `Schemes of Work’ which gave each pupil control over what they were expected to do over an extended  project.  These, in turn, were differentiated, so that pupils were offered a choice of `route’.  This was done to avoid pupils feeling stigmatised in any way by being given, for instance, the easiest (read lowest) `route’.  Apparently, most pupils chose wisely, and seldom needed a tactful word (in private) advising them to change.  This system was used at KS3 and at KS4.  This enabled the gifted pupils to be sufficiently challenged and to become more autonomous learners, as the hardest `route’ involved much more personal research and experimentation.

This approach highlights what may, by some, be considered potential problems in mixed ability teaching.  Without careful planning, able pupils can find themselves going at a pace inappropriately slow for their talents, or possibly repeating similar exercises for the benefit of less able pupils.  Good structuring avoids these difficulties, providing an ethos in which each pupil can develop at their own pace and benefit from the contributions of all abilities to the work ethic.

Stretching the Very Able:

There is still the question of how very able pupils can be stretched to achieve their full potential.  `By using a variety of methods, both within the school and outside, effective provision for able and talented children can be greatly enhanced.’ (Teare 197 cited in Leyden 2002: 86).  Given even the best differentiation in the classroom there is still scope for greater challenge and development in many cases.  Arranging enrichment programmes for the gifted and talented appears to be the most acceptable and  effective way to promote the full innate ability of these pupils (www.teachernet.gov.uk: 2007).  These programmes may take a number of forms; residential courses providing a group of like-minded pupils from around the county with an intense three or four days high-level activity in a particular subject area seem always to be successful practically, academically and socially – it is important that very able pupils should not feel isolated in their talents. `Master Classes’ provided by universities and colleges on Saturdays of after school also work well for the pupils co-opted onto them.  Further activities can take place on the school premises, such as specific workshops where pupils are taken off normal timetable for a day or so and taught by outside experts, and school clubs, which will attract pupils of all abilities, but each will work at his or her own pace and within their own special interests.

Reflections and Conclusions:

Where does all this leave Z (Q1, Q10)?  Sharp enough in his questioning to put teachers on the spot, yet unable to put his thoughts successfully down on paper?  On the Autistic spectrum, a pupil like Z has the need for routine and a dislike –almost amounting to a fear – of change.  As with others like him, Z dislikes group activity and leads a quite isolated existence amidst the hustle and bustle of school life, working alone whenever possible.  It may be possible to tailor an extra-curricular club situation to suit him, but would he attend?  For certain, residential activities away from his known surroundings would not be appropriate, nor would a trip to a strange university every week.  It may seem that subject teachers must take full responsibility with such a pupil for stretching his intellect and abilities to their full potential.  Because of the nature of Autism, some may believe that the computer is a good solution to educational and perhaps social problems! `Computers are predictable’(Hardy, Ogden, Newman, Cooper 2002: 23), they also lack emotional expression and do not try to make friends, but does this make them the solution to the needs of Autistic spectrum sufferers?
Far better, I believe, Z, in common with other very able pupils might find he can take advantage of mentoring (Q10, Q19), if a mentor can be found whom Z trusts:

To be effective, mentors need to be clear about the purpose of their involvement

           with particular pupil and, ideally, to have received some training for their role.

           There needs to be an explicit agreement about the nature, timing and duration of

           the contact. ….. Mentors need to be able to use a range of skills in questioning,    

           challenging and support and to be able to develop a good relationship with the

           pupil. (Leyton 202: 95-96)

Usually, schools appoint mentors to pupils –they could be teachers, support staff or sixth form students – when pupils reach KS4.  However, why should there not be exceptions in exceptional circumstances?  Z is an avid questioner, desiring both to find out about things and to trip teachers up!  Educational conversations with a sympathetic senior, whether teacher or older student, may help him reach the potential his intelligence suggests.

Exceptional pupils need exceptional responses from their schools.  Every child, we recognise, is individual in their needs and in our expectations of them, in the way they learn and in the way we teach them.  Differentiation is accepted as standard practice by most schools and teachers and the practice has been analysed and written about extensively.  It is well known that we differentiate by teacher input, by task and by outcome.  This is all important and, needless to say, if done successfully, time-consuming and hard work, but rewarding in its successes.  Attention is often focused on those with learning difficulties when we consider differentiation and, as recognised by the government of 1999, for a long time too little attention and planning was afforded to the able pupils, often disaffected, underachieving and bored.  This essay has sought to consider the need for effective differentiation for these able pupils but, in the light of the experience of shadowing a pupil with complex needs, it has also attempted to consider and suggest solutions for the able pupil with specific learning difficulties.

TO FOLLOW:

 Will or  how technology might aid students: Please see TAGS for ideas.

Critical Reflection, paradigms in Art Teaching: Motivation, Creativity, Opportunity

In a previous work (appendix) I stated this below:

We contextualise art and artists and understanding the work of individuals and movements in art is now enshrined in government art educational strategy.  It is now generally agreed that practical art and critical studies in art are mutually dependent, that the one improves the appreciation and study of the other.

Previously I have looked back at great educators, John Ruskin, Acland, Dyce, and Matthew Arnold. I believe that understanding their methods has helped me reflect on my own pedagogic issues. I will examine my own work as a pupil, artist and teacher just as I would that of my students. My own view on Art Education is that we need to bring more skill-based activities into schools; skills build ideas and form a solid background to fall back on.
In stating this then, and using my pedagogic practice, I intend to examine my own role of teacher and artist.

Reflection on other practitioners has enhanced my knowledge and helped form my options.

The notion of paradigms.

Paradigms are central to the philosophical theory of educational inquiry, critical reflection.  Paradigms are described as a pattern, model, and knowledge of behaviour, which is structured.
Some art teachers have tried to view their teaching situation in terms of paradigms, in an effort to make sense of their development. Efland’s theoretical orientations in psychology suggest four main orientations.

 The mimetic tradition in aesthetics with psychological behaviourism,
  pragmatic aesthetics with cognitive psychology, expressive aesthetics
 with psychoanalytic psychology, and objective aesthetics with gestalt
                 psychology.
(Efland, A.D. Conceptions of teaching in art education,
 Art Education, 1979, 32 (4), 21-32.)




Akoi refers to paradigms that can be applied to research theory in education, his framework is adapted from Habermas’ three basic forms of knowing.
(Habermas, J. Knowing and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press, 1971.)

Habermas discerns Nietzsche’s connections to epistemology, underlying human interests. These positions of historical philosophy are as follows:

 Paradigm 1: The Empirical-Analytic Orientation.
(Technical Knowing)
Paradigm 2: The Interpretive-Hermeneutic Orientation.
(Situational Knowing)
 Paradigm 3: The Critical –Theoretic Orientation.
     (Critical Knowing)

Since Habermas’ tri-paradigmatic theory came into art education, most critical reflection in research and practice has been conducted from this perspective.
The implications of my IMP, the theory and subjective knowledge all have an impact on my profession.
I am attempting to discuss my experience as an art teacher, artist and workshop leader.  I currently do a variety of workshops as well as teach.  My most recent association is with the NSEAD, where I currently deal with human right issues through visual art.  I also work for an exam board as a moderator, so get to compare work and ideas.
My personal position within the continuous role of artist and teacher in notion has led me to consider my role as the pupil artist, which in turn has led me to my question.

Motivation, Creativity, Opportunity.

Introduction:

Creative pupils need creative teachers with the confidence to take creative risks. If we want to promote and firmly establish creativity in the school curriculum then providing the proper opportunity, the right environment and motivation will be crucial.  It seems to me that some of the problems of how to encourage creativity and motivation are intertwined, they are both somewhat elusive and you may feel that they tend to be caught rather than explicitly taught.  There is no doubt that the education pendulum recently has swung decisively towards recognising the importance of creativity, or at least talk about creativity while the ability to motivate pupils more often continues to be regarded as the fortunate gift of the talented teacher rather than something that can be consciously nurtured as part of any well considered pedagogy.

What is exactly is creativity? The NACCCE report defined creativity activity as 'Imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are both original and of value'.  It is not the exclusive prerogative of the arts. Howard Gardner suggests that the creative individual ‘…is a person who regularly solves problems, fashions products, or defines new questions in a domain in a way that is initially considered novel but that ultimately becomes accepted in a particular cultural setting.'  Thus what we see as creativity is culturally determined and striving for innovation for innovations sake, or a conceptual artist’s single-minded determination to provide the ultimate ‘shock of the new’, is not in itself enough to be identified as a purposeful creative act.

Creativity is not rare in the sense that the ability to be creative or to think creatively is not limited to those who, either in their time or subsequently, are recognised as creative geniuses. On one level creativity is a commonplace human attribute: most people regularly make significant creative problem solving or aesthetic decisions – at work, in the home, in school, in the garden, wherever...

I doubt that there is much argument about the importance of teachers giving their students a strong motivation to succeed. My dictionary helpfully suggests motivation is: ‘The (conscious or unconscious) stimulus, incentive, motives, etc., for action towards a goal, especially as resulting from psychological or social factors; the factors giving purpose or direction to behaviour’.   But the word ‘motivation’ is nearly as problematic as creativity to define: its possible synonyms include ‘incentive’, ‘stimulus’, ‘inspiration’, ‘inducement’, ‘incitement’, ‘spur’, and ‘goad’. These indicate differing strategies that might be employed in the classroom from offering rewards or concessions  (incentive) to provocation (incitement) and punishment. Perhaps all of these approaches can prove expedient from time to time but in these enlightened times some more extreme examples of ‘motivation’ I experienced at school in the 1950s would infringe current human rights legislation!  My purpose in this talk is to try to look into these concepts and their implications for the classroom in a little more depth.

Creativity:

Creativity is not simply a matter of novel or divergent thinking. The balance typically may vary from discipline to discipline between those appositional modes of thought that are so much neglected in education (what Julian Barnes memorably called 'impertinent connections'), compared with the more-favoured propositional modes of thinking such as reason, logic and causality. But there are no invariable rules about this balance, for example in the sciences compared to the arts, or from individual to individual. The important point is that these ways of thinking, either separately or more likely in combination, can be equally creative. Einstein famously said 'In times of crisis imagination is more important than knowledge', acknowledging that creativity is dependent on more than logical, systematic planning and reasoning sub-conscious scanning of information often plays a crucial part in the search for creative solutions.

Creativity cannot be rushed or reduced to a formula: there is often a long incubation period before creative ideas suddenly gel in that 'Eureka!' moment. Serendipity often plays a key role in developing creative outcomes or finding design solutions but this may be more than just good luck or fortune. It requires 'space', of a kind often in short supply in target-driven schools, to allow for accidentally making unexpected discoveries, perhaps in the course of looking for something entirely different. (Serendipity was a word coined by Horace Walpole after the title of an old Persian fairy tale, Three Princes of Serendip, the heroes of which were always making accidental but useful discoveries of things they were not looking for. Apparently ‘Serendip’ is a variation on the Arabic name for Sri Lanka. You can find various versions of the tale on the Internet.)  A good example is the discovery of penicillin but there are countless others.

I find it most useful to think of creativity as shorthand for a raft of multi-faceted abilities and predispositions that need to be fostered throughout the curriculum.  Creative individuals may display a range of characteristics that extend beyond some assumed general capacity for divergent thinking.  For example these might include: a tolerance for ambiguity and a willing playfulness with ideas, materials or processes; an ability to concentrate and persist, to keep on teasing and worrying away at an idea or problem rather than seeking premature closure.

They are likely to recognise, or have a readiness to explore, unlikely connections, juxtapositions. They may be particularly self-aware and have the courage (or plain bloody-mindedness) to pursue their ideas in the face of opposition. Most of all, creative individuals must have the confidence, the self-belief to take intellectual and intuitive risks in the cause of innovation, breaking or pushing back the boundaries of what is known or thought possible, or in achieving new aesthetic conjunctions.  Perhaps in essence creative thinking, as Richard Kimbell has suggested, is simply ‘risky thinking’?

Dewulf and Baillie identify four elements of the creative process:

◦ Preparation – in which the problem or question is defined, reformulated and redefined, moving from a given to an understanding.

◦ Generation – moving beyond habitual pathways of thinking, purging associative concepts to the problem; brainstorming.

◦ Incubation – a subconscious stimulus, often following a period of relaxation or relaxed attention  – hence the Eureka moment.

◦ Verification – where ideas are analysed, clustered and evaluated, followed by planning the action and implementation.

It is important to stress that this is rarely a simple linear process and usually there is interplay between these elements, with various phases being revisited and reviewed. For example when dead ends seem apparent. This suggests that adequate time or ‘creative space’ is a crucial requirement if the creative spark is to flourish. There are other preconditions that are equally important for both teachers and pupils including an atmosphere of mutual trust and affective support; the constructive use of probing questioning to increase the intellectual challenge; allowing the pupil to develop a real sense of ownership of the task or problem; and bolstering confidence and self-esteem.

It is soon apparent that these necessary preconditions do not always sit easily alongside the everyday classroom pressures and controlled prescriptions of the national curriculum, literacy and numeracy hours, assessment and inspection. I am attracted to the definition of creativity as 'risky thinking', but clearly in many schools the prevalent view is that it is best to play safe, stick to the established routines and not to take chances.

Creative pupils need creative teachers with the confidence to take creative risks. Unfortunately, this takes exceptional commitment and vision in our increasingly high stakes education system with its pressures to conform created by the standardised curriculum, standardised assessment tasks, targets, ITT standards, numerous other initiatives, league tables, inspection, limited resources and limited CPD, and large teaching groups in schools. Performance related pay provides a further incentive for teachers to avoid being seen as 'out of line'. The concept of high reliability schools, analogous to air traffic control, where any failure of the system is potentially disastrous, severely limits the scope for individual teachers to innovate or push the boundaries and to avoid becoming what Ted Wragg once called 'curriculum delivery operatives'. There seems to be too few rewards for creative initiatives. Creativity does not seem at present to figure much on current inspection checklists or ITT standards and it might help, as the NACCCE report suggests if inspectors were ‘…to take fuller account of creative education and the processes of teaching, learning and assessment that it involves'.

One consequence is that in secondary schools it is entirely possible to run what is recognised as a ‘good’ arts department and achieve excellent examination results by means of assiduous teacher prescription and direction, where students are coached to replicate safe and reliable projects year after year.   In this case, activities may be more re-creative than genuinely creative and often typify the orthodoxy of 'School art'.  By contrast, real creativity is allied with the pursuit of ideas that are inventive, show imagination; ideas that may be innovative, radical and sometimes heretical or revolutionary.  The outcomes may often be uncomfortable or confrontational – indeed some contemporary practice seems to be simply designed to do little more than shock. Perhaps that is why in a recent discussion an examination board spokesperson blithely told me that creativity in schools was a ‘good thing’ – provided, he said, it is 'properly controlled'.   And controlled it often is. Not long ago a Sunday Times feature declared: 'Forget creativity, imagination and play.  For children at school in Britain, life is tests, tests and more tests'.  'But', the writer asked, 'if stamping out their individuality is designed to get better results, why isn't it working?'

The QCA set up a working party to advise on guidance for schools about ways to promote pupils' creativity.  Its findings resulted in an ‘official’ creativity web site to complement the QCA publication ‘Creativity, find it promote it’, but at the same time we still have a curriculum boxed in by attainment targets, programmes of study and closely linked assessment procedures.  This quick-fix ‘solution’ that presents schools with exemplary 'creative' projects, may be destined only to add to the prevailing orthodoxy.

However it would be wrong to give the impression that neglect of creativity or failure to afford it a proper balance in the curriculum is a recent problem. In 1982, well before the advent of the National Curriculum, Leslie Perry, then Professor of Philosophy in Education at King's College London, pointed out that it is not simply the case that creativity provides a universal golden key to successful learning for all pupils. The key point, he rightly asserted, are to do with how far knowledge based curricula are permeated with creativity and how far creativity is permeated with knowledge, habit-forming, and other perfectly reasonable aspects of the curriculum:
Those who teach knowledge as a matter of memorising forget that it is the product of past creativity and should be presented as such. Those who teach creativity to the neglect of knowledge should remember that past creativity is preserved and brought into continuity with present creativity by knowledge well learnt. Surely, if we espouse creativity come what may, then 'come what may' is not long in arriving: the curriculum loses structure and form and classes have a long tail of apathetic pupils. If it is knowledge come what may, then we have a daily gap between memory and understanding, lack of vitality, and a long tail of apathetic pupils.

Where will this new found enthusiasm for creativity lead? A template to assess and report on a ten-point scale the supposed competencies associated with creative behaviours? The pitfalls should be obvious. In his anatomy of creativity, Creating minds,  Howard Gardner questioned the validity of tests for creativity and pointed out that that creativity is not the same as intelligence: that while these two traits are correlated, an individual may be far more creative than he or she is intelligent, or far more intelligent than creative.

E. P. Torrance made similar points over thirty years ago, pointing out that  ‘…if we were to identify children as gifted on the basis of intelligence tests, we would eliminate from consideration approximately seventy per cent of the most creative’.  He claims that this holds true regardless of how intelligence is measured and no matter what educational level is studied from kindergarten to graduate school.  Torrance noted that teachers rated more highly the children with high IQs on most counts but, he noted, highly creative children appear to learn as much as the highly intelligent without seeming to work as hard. Why? He concludes, ‘My guess is that these highly creative children are learning and thinking when they appear to be “playing around”’.  May be such individuals often seem difficult to manage in the classroom situation, because they often want to follow their own agendas, at their own pace, rather than that of the teacher? What happens to them as a consequence?

Motivation.

The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI)  is part of the Social Science Research Unit at the Institute of Education, University of London.  A recent EPPI systematic research review considered the impact of summative assessment and tests on students’ motivation for learning.  The review team defined motivation as:

…a complex concept concerned with the drive, incentive or energy to do something. Motivation is not a single entity but embraces, for example, effort, self-efficacy, self-regulation, interest, locus of control, self-esteem, goal orientation and learning disposition.  …motivation for learning is understood to be a form of energy which is experienced by learners and which drives their capacity to learn, adapt and change in response to internal and external stimuli. It is closely identified with the 'will to learn', which determines the effort that a learner will put into a task.

The EPPI review team recognised that there are different ways in which this energy or will to learn can be motivated and made a particular distinction, as many others have done, between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation:
Those who learn in order to gain an extrinsic reward are unlikely to continue learning once the reward is obtained or the penalty avoided, and they will give up earlier if reward seems unobtainable. For continued learning, the motive needs to be intrinsic, the reward being in the process of learning and in the recognition of being in control of, and responsible, for one's own learning.


There are some general and fairly obvious principles of motivation – for example, incentives motivate learning and these include privileges and receiving praise from the teacher. In contrast in a general learning situation: ‘…self-motivation without rewards will not succeed. Students must find satisfaction in learning based on the understanding that the goals are useful to them or, less commonly, based on the pure enjoyment of exploring new things’.

The EPPI review team make some further useful points.  For example, they confirm that students need not only to understand the goals of their learning, but also need to understand the criteria by which they are assessed and how to assess their own work.  Feedback has an important role in determining further learning and students are influenced by feedback from earlier performance on similar tasks in relation to the effort they invest in further tasks: such teacher feedback needs to address the student’s ego rather than simply focus on the shortcomings of the completed task.

Positive inter-personal relationships matter between teachers and students: constructive discussion is important in creating an ethos that supports students' feelings of self-worth and effort – students will not take creative risks unless they trust their teachers not  to crush their endeavours at the first sign of any deviation from some  prized lesson plan. Education systems that place undue emphasis on evaluation produce students with strong extrinsic orientation towards grades and social status. If motivation is not to be ephemeral, interest and effort should be encouraged through self-regulated learning by providing students with an element of choice, control over challenge and opportunities to work collaboratively.

Huitt in his overview of ‘ Motivation to learn’ reports a general consensus that motivation is an internal state – perhaps a need, desire or want – that serves to activate or energise behaviour and give it direction.  Determination and persistence are also keys to maintaining effective motivation. It is self-evident that success is more predictably motivating than failure, hence the old dictum ‘Nothing succeeds like success’.  Huitt suggests that motivation requires three constants to be present.

1. The perceived probability of success (expectancy);

2. a connection between success and reward (Instrumentality), and

3. recognition of the value of obtaining a particular goal.

Therefore: ‘…if an individual doesn’t believe he or she can be successful at a task or the individual does not see a connection between his or her activity and success or the individual does not value the results of success, then the probability is lowered that the individual will engage in the required learning activity’.  Similarly, as teachers, we tend to respond positively when our students are motivated and despair when they are not, creating a dangerous tendency to de-motivate students and become ever more de-motivated ourselves: a depressing situation for all concerned.

Huitt also provides a list of specific strategies teachers can employ to increase both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the classroom.  Years earlier Silverman described the motivating factors he considered important for art education.  By combining and modifying their ideas the four key areas to consider might be:

1. Planning the learning experience with care to arouse and maintain pupils’ curiosity; setting clear goals while avoiding prescriptions that would determine outcomes.  Teaching that too directly addresses pre-determined assessment criteria standards and targets too often inhibits creativity and motivation.

2. Providing opportunities for discussions which attract attention to the complexity of art and, thereby, arousing curiosity; avoiding repetition and orthodoxy by seeking varied teaching strategies; organising a variety of activities that involve play, surprise, and ingenuity; explaining or demonstrating why learning about a particular context or skill is important.

3. Knowing about pupils' aptitudes for art and being empathetic to what is meaningful to them; finding ways to channel their interests and the issues that concern them into worthwhile art projects and objectives; helping pupils develop individual work plans – personalised learning – that relate to their needs and interests and allow them to proceed at a pace commensurate with their ability and preferred patterns of working.

4. Offering feedback that boosts pupils’ self-esteem through appreciative critiques rather than just corrective critiques. Helping pupils identify the criteria by which they can evaluate their progress and the outcomes of their work and, thereby, serving as a stimulus for further accomplishments.

All these suggestions are aimed primarily at developing lasting intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation – for example, overt reward and punishment  – may work for a time but usually only while the pupil is under the teacher’s direct control.

Opportunity:

Accepting that there is a need for change in how we teach the arts, how likely is it that it will come about? For some time the rhetoric of politicians, including the prime minister, has emphasised the creative imperative. Tony Blair asserts:  ‘Our aim must be to create a nation where the creative talents of all the people are used to build a true enterprise economy for the twenty-first century - where we compete on brains, not brawn.’  Secretary for State (USA) Tessa Jowell has added ‘Societies that are creative will have an economic advantage’. But Sir Ken Robinson, the chair of the NACCCE, responded before leaving for the greener pastures of the Getty Institute for the Arts in California,  'If the government were to design an education system to inhibit creativity, it could hardly do better'.

However there is evidence of real change afoot and one reason for this is a very strong economic imperative. The Department for Media, Culture and Sport web site reveals telling statistics, including the rapid growth of the creative industries and their contribution to the balance of trade, overall employment, nearly two million jobs, with over seven percent of all companies in the United Kingdom involved in this field. Given the major economic significance of these recent developments, perhaps the only surprise should be the time it has taken government ministers to realise the implications for education!

As if to refute such allegations ‘Collaborate, Create, Educate’ was a major conference jointly organised by the DfES and DCMS in June 2003. The key message – ‘Creativity, imagination and innovative thinking should be at the heart of children's experience at school’ was hammered home. This was the occasion when the £70 million plan was announced to extend the Creative Partnerships scheme to a further twenty areas around the country.

As usual there is some scepticism about government commitment to the creativity agenda.  It is worth recalling that similar sentiments to those now being expressed by ministers, were until recently usually dismissed out of hand as unrealistic, hopelessly idealistic and sad harping back to the 1960s.  But the interest has been maintained for several years and a ‘Creativity Review’ jointly commissioned by the DCMS and DfES is to be published on 17th June 2006.

Time for change.

So what happens now? How easily can change come about? How can art and design education in particular benefit from the change? There do seem to be some obstacles including deep-seated attitudes to the comparative worth of curriculum subjects, the need for further investment (Creative Partnerships was not rolled out across the whole country), and issues of continuing over-prescription and perhaps undermined teacher confidence.  But the pace of change appears to be quickening.  The National Society for Education in Art & Design (NSEAD) for example is involved in developing an increasing number of creative projects in collaboration with government agencies, including Arts Council England, QCA, BECTa and the TDA – and all with some serious funding involved for a change.

I do not want to suggest that the economic imperative is the only worthwhile rationale for arts education in schools, but if it is an argument the government understands why not use it?  But I would also like to offer a more balanced over-arching rationale for my specialist subject area.  Art, craft and design education is concerned with the transmission and transformation of cultures. Thus students should learn to appreciate, value and be tolerant of images and artefacts, western and non-western, contemporary and from other times, and to understand the contexts of their production. They should develop the capacity to work confidently and creatively with a range of traditional media and new technologies, appreciating and enjoying competent and intelligent making. They should learn to reflect critically on their work and that of others, making reasoned judgements about quality, value and meaning, while developing a life-long interest in the visual arts.

Arts teachers no doubt will wish to remind colleagues, parents and pupils of the creative subjects key roles – including their economic significance – in these enlightened times whilst demonstrating the wide benefits of truly innovative, creative and enjoyable art and design education!  Doing nothing is not an option, we should grasp the opportunities presented by the present interest in creativity to re-think and broaden the whole curriculum, not just the arts curriculum.

Michael Barber formerly head of the DfES Standards and Effectiveness Unit, is responsible for this  very apt quotation: ‘Creativity is not only an outcome of a good education, but a means of achieving a good education.’ There’s somebody who appears to understand the issue.

Remember, Creative pupils need creative teachers with the confidence to take creative risks.




   

NACCCE (1999) 'All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education', Department for Education and Employment, London.

  Gardner, H (1993) 'Creating minds', Basic Books, New York, p.35.

  Oxford Talking Dictionary, CD-ROM, The Learning Company, Inc., 1998.

  Dewulf, S & Baillie, C (1999) ‘How to foster Creativity’, DfEE, London.

  Cornwell, J (2001) 'Learning the hard way', Sunday Times Magazine, London, pp.22-27.

  www.ncaction.org.uk/creativity/ accessed 10 May 2013.

  QCA (2002) ‘Creativity: Find it, promote it’, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, London.

  Perry, L (1982) 'The Educational Value of Creativity' in Crafts Conference for Teachers report, London: Crafts Council.

  Gardner, H (1993) 'Creating minds', Basic Books, New York.

  Torrance, E (1970) ‘Stimulating Creativity’, in Vernon, P (ed), Creativity, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, p.358.

  Ibid, note 10.

  http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWeb/home.aspx

  ‘A systematic review of the impact of summative assessment and tests on student’s motivation for learning’, EPPI-Centre, June 2013, retrieved 12 June 2013 from: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWeb/home.aspx?page=/reel/review_groups/assessment/review_one.htm  

  ‘A systematic review of the impact of summative assessment and tests on student’s motivation for learning’, EPPI-Centre, June 2013, retrieved 14th June 2013 from: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWeb/home.aspx?page=/reel/review_groups/assessment/review_one.htm

‘General Principles of Motivation’ (author unknown) retrieved 21st September 2004 from http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/motivate.htm

  Huitt, W (2001) ‘Motivation to learn: An overview’, Educational Psychology Interactive, Valdosta GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved 23rd September 2004 from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/motivation/motivate.html http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/motivation/motivate.html

  ibid., note 16.

  Silverman, R (1972) ‘A Syllabus for Art Education’, California State University, Los Angeles (in Taylor R (1986) p. 71.

  Blair, A in NACCCE (1999), op. cit. note 1.

  Cornwell, J (2001) 'Learning the hard way', Sunday Times Magazine, London, pp.22-27.
  www.culture.gov.uk accessed www.culture.gov.uk accessed11 July 2013

Technology in business

Does this connect to digital natives using analysis?

"To resolve issues with targets, Ducati has equipped its sales network with iPads and developed a custom in-house app called DCS, or Ducati Communication System, a SAP-based interface that lets dealers easily find, send, and receive all the information they need to place orders and track them through production and delivery."

Ducati and i pad