Sketchnote reflections on MA Education. Technology Creativity and Thinking: Creativity and Educational Futures.
Creativity has always driven my practice as a teacher of visual art. It is at the heart of what I teach and is a fundamental skill relevant to all subjects of the curriculum. In this commentary, I will reflect back on aspects of the Creativity and Education Futures modules that have ignited interest and possibilities to improve my own and other educators’ practices. I work in a large K-12 International School in Singapore in an art department of 8 teachers. I am also a Digital Literacy Coach which allows me to work with a wide range of teachers across the school engaging in conversations and collaborations to improve student learning. As a 1:1 laptop school technology dominates the classroom for organisation, sharing resources, research, collaboration and creating content.
Throughout the module, I frequently returned to the work of Anna Craft and Sonail Inayatullah, in particular with regard to future theories, Possibility Thinking and the 4Ps to explore directions for the future of art education and what this might mean for our students. Participating in conversations about probable, possible, preferable futures has kickstarted my thinking about the development of the subject and what changes need to be put in place to drive us forward. In my previous presentation and essay, my investigations centred on the inclusion of play and experimentation and how art might evolve with emerging technologies and pedagogy surrounding new literacies.
In considering the future of art, our school mission states,
“The UWC movement makes education a force to unite people, nations and cultures for peace and a sustainable future”
but what does this actually look like in our day to day work with youngsters and what exactly might a sustainable future be?
Whilst applying for a leadership position within the department I wanted to delve deeper into investigating sustainable education and this has helped to determine what the department needs to change to address future concerns. What skills will be relevant for an unknown future? What will an art curriculum look like? Building a curriculum that is both relevant, long-lasting and flexible is quite a challenge.
Investigating various schools in my region, the teaching of art varies enormously. In local schools, the skills focused on are often traditional: skills of drawing and painting, history of art. Art is not seen as a core subject and the focus is on STEM subjects with Mathematics being a priority. Singapore is a multicultural society and even within my own school, parents are most keen to see their children progress highly in Maths and Science with high scores and examination results, leaving them at the top of world league tables. Much like schools in the UK, the Arts feature as electives beyond 14. However, in the IB curriculum, holistic education is a key principle and students are encouraged to balance their subjects. Even so, many students do not take a creative subject. There is often an assumption held by many that creativity is only appropriate in the arts and that creativity or creative thinking is not relevant to the rest of the curriculum. However creativity is now one of the top 3 skills needed to prepare students for the future, and it champions the need for such a skill or competency to be embedded across the curriculum (WEF, 2016). Creativity is not just for the arts, it is a fundamental life skill and our future will depend on creative thinkers and innovators to solve big issues like climate change, world peace, or poverty.
The Future of Jobs (WEF, 2016)
At the beginning of this course, I reflected that creativity is all about thinking, experimenting, failing and often involved taking risks. All these capabilities reside not solely in the Arts but across the curricula.
Mindmap – What is Creativity by Nicki Hambleton
Whilst teaching students how to take notes more visually, they discussed their own views on creativity through sketchnotes and common ideas were seen again: ideas, messy, collaborative, making something new, innovation.
Student example, HKIS. What is Creativity? (2018)
When educators were asked the same question through a Menti poll, further definitions could be seen including curiosity, open-mindedness, exploration, all of which are applicable schoolwide.
Results from a Menti poll, 2018
Presenting recently at Innovation in Schools, I shared the need to teach for creativity rather than teaching creatively. The latter suggests being inventive about how we teach but neglects how to foster and develop creativity and creative thinking. Patrick Green, at the same conference, talked about student choice being at the centre of creativity, using the example of his 7-year-old son whose creativity was stifled by teachers micro-managing a project and restricting choices. Whilst this example focuses on Primary education the same can often be the case in High School, where learning is predominantly content driven. Where is the time for creativity? My husband teaches IB Physics and sees students consumed by the demands of such a content heavy curriculum, but he also understands how students learn best. We discussed at length how, in order to investigate science, one needs to experiment, play with ideas, concepts and materials. Most scientific breakthroughs may not have occurred if it hadn’t been for playfulness, risk-taking and possibility thinking. With this, he concluded that Science is creative and the need to push this skill imperative to help develop rounded and innovative scientists in the future. Indeed Oded Ben-Horin et al describe creativity in Science as “generating ideas and strategies as an individual or community” citing again Craft’s everyday creativity, where teachers lead purposeful activities to promote engagement and thinking (Ben-Horin et al, 2017).
Sir Ken Robinson berates schools for “killing creativity” and for “educating (students) out of their creative capabilities” (Robinson, 2006). More often learning is about remembering and recalling facts, figures, and information. Universities require this acquisition of knowledge and judge students on their success by their final numerical grades. How does this show what a student is truly capable of and how they might be successful in a particular field of study? Perhaps institutions should be looking at holistic skills including creativity, problem-solving and thinking as the new competencies for the future workforce. “Creativity is as important in education as literacy and we should treat it with the same status” (Robinson, 2006).
In Rhetorics of Creativity, Banaji, Burn and Buckingham describe creativity as “inherent in the everyday cultural and symbolic practices of all human beings” (Banaji et al, p. 57). This ordinary creativity mirrors Anna Craft’s view where she explores little “c” creativity, the thinking and ideas which occur in the mundane activities of daily life or the small moments of imagination. This, of course, differs greatly from high creativity, Big C creativity or Pro (Craft, 2001) the work of professionals or experts. Creativity does not have to be the complex and time-consuming add-on that many believe to be the case. Allowing students the time to think for themselves, to explore and experiment with thinking and ideas will allow this everyday creativity to flourish across the curriculum. My everyday creativity is sketchnoting, as can be seen in the reflective portfolio, and I teach this skill to students and staff to help them synchronise their thinking and to share and organise important information for better recall. Initially, I take notes in a notebook and revisit these to elicit the big ideas, capturing this as a large image. I extract key points to delve deeper, including text and images to capture and recognise these points.
Sketchnote by Nicki Hambleton
It is time intensive, but an enjoyable and valuable process and one I wholly believe in and promote.
Humanities student example of sketchnoting. HKIS, 2018
AP Psychology students visual thinking with post-it notes. HKIS, 2018
Reflecting on the findings in Chappell and Craft’s “Creative Learning Conversations”, I see evidence in my classroom of the positive implications of meaningful conversations and discussion (Chappell and Craft, 2011). Mapping these conversations in ways that can be revisited and reflected upon is an important element of their work. Sketchnotes allow individuals to review their thinking and to share with others. I use the Harkness table for discussions with an online backchannel Today’s Meet. In a fishbowl style scenario, students discuss as I “map” the conversation on paper. I observed a Primary teacher using an app called Equity maps, to see data and trends on individual participation, sharing this with her students, thus involving students in the process.
Grade 3 students Demonstrating Equity Maps at Nexus, Singapore
I use Padlet to track student progress and this space allows them to reflect, feedback and share their learning with others. Padlet is a very versatile platform and teachers use it for sharing book reports, as a discussion tool, podcasts, resources and for portfolios. As a public space, it is always important to consider the audience and the ethics of what to share and to whom, so there are inbuilt tools to adjust this depending on requirements. Craft describes participation in terms of “joining in and being heard” as one of the important aspects of playing in a “dialogical space” (Craft, 2011, p94) and in a digital space many voices can be both seen and heard. We use an online learning platform and this interactive, participatory space allows for multiple interactions between students and teachers or peer to peer. I can pose questions, allow students to investigate and share their thinking as a conversation, locking comments if I want them to think for themselves. In a safe environment, this allows students to learn the nuances of respect, questioning and conversation in preparation for real online public spaces. Technology has allowed us to redefine social engagement and to engage students in conversations both in and out of the classroom. Collaboration and connectedness are a fundamental part of students daily lives and Chappell talks about wise humanising creativity as a way of empowering individuals to work collaboratively towards change (Chappell et al, 2012). With this in mind, student voice has become an important part of my research into how art education might look in the future. In “Creative Schools”, Ken Robinson focuses on student voice and of the need for more personalization and flexibility of teaching. Often students have to fit with the system and schedule not the other way around.
Class Padlet for Student unit tracking, ongoing reflections and feedback
I am constantly drawn back to Craft’s thoughts on this evolving world students are living in, described as the 4Ps and of the connections between them. In my previous post, I focused on the importance of play in learning but I would like to explore further the aspect of “possibility-awareness” to nurture creativity and address future thinking (Craft, 2011, p33). In a rapidly evolving digital world, learning and teaching have to change and Craft’s 4P’s are a way to investigate opportunities to become more aware of the changes needed.
Recently my school has developed a 5-year strategic plan with the vision and pointers to address aspects of our mission and values. This maps where we want to get to but not the details of how to get there. This is where possibility thinking comes in, and as I look to the future of how to lead the art department, this approach will allow me to involve all stakeholders in the conversation and of aspects that require change. One of the powerful aspects of Possibility Thinking involves question-posing and this, in turn, leads to innovation and creative thinking. Questioning in the art classroom involves asking students to interpret what they see, think and wonder, a common thinking routine I use. It can spark debate and discussion or trigger ideas and develop imagination but also open up new directions for learning. Through enquiry, at any level of the school, students are able to research, make decisions, weigh up options, create new thoughts and debate ideas (Craft et al, 2014). Possibility thinking, coupled with future thinking, specifically alternative futures (Inayatullah, 2008) is helping me to build a vision for the art department. With the rise of Maker Spaces and recommendations from the Horizon report (2017) for adoption, more schools are developing dedicated spaces for creation and invention. Students in my school have access to the Ideas Hub where they can make, tinker and play with a multitude of materials and processes to invent and collaborate. There are competitions and community events and creativity is truly valued here, outside of the curriculum.
UWCSEA, Ideas Hub, Singapore
How can we model creative thinking and teach the skills relevant to our subject? Where is the time for creativity? In my initial presentation on learning and play, I focused on Inayatullah’s alternative futures and the importance of having a vision for the future rather than a determined roadmap, where previous notions of looking to the past or used futures restricted thinking or gave predictable results. With this in mind, applying for the Head of HS Art position at my school, I set out to talk to students (and staff) about what a possible and preferable future for art education might look like. Students have a solid foundation of skills resulting in excellent grades, taught by a team that has worked together for many years. The curriculum has changed over time in content and with the integration of the online learning platform and digitising of the IB coursework. As with many departments, students yearn for the answers without the thinking. How can it be even better for its students and bring back the joy of making art? Do students think enough about their ideas and reflect on the process of working and the work of others to help develop meaningful ideas and decisions? Thinking takes time and energy and is hard. But to be successful in the future, students need to develop these skills to be able to digest and make sense of information and envision where and how to use this to innovate and solve problems. Talking to students about what they see as the future in art education surprises me as they are seduced by the developments in technology yet impassioned by the hands-on nature of art materials. How can we marry these two seemingly polarised approaches to art? In order for art education to be sustainable we need to build capacity in our students to be able to think for themselves, not just to solve problems but the find problems that need solving. We need to give opportunities to build critical skills and creativity by giving them space and the time to play and experiment and in turn create their own paths of discovery.
Excerpts from Menti: What might art education look like in the future? (2018)
Guy Claxton talks about building “resilience, resourcefulness, reflection and reciprocity” (Claxton, 2012) to develop critical thinking skills. These “learning powers”, the 4Rs, exercise the brain to improve learning, just as building muscle develops strength in our bodies.
Claxton’s work brings me back to the question:
What is education for and how can we build an education that is sustainable?
As this debate continues, collating conversations about future thinking must include students’ ideas. Our mission includes the phrase “for a sustainable future” and it is this that I constantly revisit when grappling with a vision for the future. What is a sustainable future? Educating for sustainability suggests teaching to develop responsible citizens for an unknown future, aware of the effects and consequences of their actions, on others and the environment in which they live. Stephen Sterling describes 4 descriptors of sustainable education: sustaining, tenable, healthy and durable (Sterling, nd). He explains that we are all important factors in this conversation and that “learning about learning” is a key part to assist us in developing a relevant education for the future. Could this guide our vision?
Students have idealistic or imaginative ideas about the future based it on current realities. Most talk about digital alternatives and emerging media, AR, virtual worlds, gaming and Ai. But others thought more about creating a balance between traditional and digital. Living a totally digital existence much like the characters in Ready Player 1, a book set in the future seems very likely but relationships, connecting on a face to face basis and collaborating is still important to youngsters. Considering alternative futures, we may need to disown certain futures (Inayatullah, 2008) discarding negative or unwanted possibilities. For learning to be sustainable, including real-world contexts must be prevalent so youngsters can make sense of and see the relevance of their learning. We do this through enquiry and concept-based learning at UWC and value student ideas.
Why and how do we foster agency in our learners? How can we help them become independent, engaged and confident learners through voice and choice.
As I reflect on this module, I know that it has deeply affected the way I think about what I teach, how I teach and how learning might change in the future, particularly in the context of Visual Art. I look to schools who are pushing the boundaries with innovative approaches and in particular what art’s position is within these frameworks. Drawing ideas from the readings, student agency and voice will dominate my practice as I endeavour to share these ideas with others: stepping back, giving time and space and valuing student ideas. In March, 2018, Apple launched “Everyone can Create” with curriculum suggestions developed by educators focusing on using the skills in video, music, photography and drawing to develop and communicate ideas in all subjects. Creativity is not just for the arts and I conclude, as did Anna Craft, that it is a skill necessary for all aspects of life especially in the unknown world that we are facing, yet something we do every day. At the centre of developing innovative and creative thinkers for the sustainability of our world, we must remember the words of Picasso, who said, that
“All children are artists. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up.”
We must exercise our creativity and go back to playing and experimenting, as we did when we were young, to be able to survive and thrive in the future.
References
About Adaptive Schools® Seminars. (2016, November 23). http://www.thinkingcollaborative.com/seminars/adaptive-schools-seminars/
Banaji, S., Burn, A., & Buckingham, D. (2009). The rhetorics of creativity: A review of the literature. The Rhetorics of Creativity: A Review of the Literature.
Centre for the Study of Children, Youth and Media, Institute of Education, University of London.
Belshaw, D. (2011, February 1). Purpos/ed: What’s the purpose of education? Join the debate. http://web.archive.org/web/20130821155343/http://purposed.org.uk/
Ben-Horin, O., Chappell, K. A., Halstead, J., & Espeland, M. (2017). Designing creative inter-disciplinary science and art interventions in schools: The case of Write a Science Opera (WASO). Cogent Education,4(1).
Chappell, K., & Craft, A. (2011). Creative learning conversations: Producing living dialogic spaces. Educational Research,53(3), 363-385.
Chappell, K., Hetherington, L., Ruck Keene, H., Slade, C., & Cukorova, M. (n.d.). Creations: Developing an engaging science classroom.
Chappell, K. A., Pender, T., Swinford, E., & Ford, K. (2016). Making and being made: Wise humanising creativity in interdisciplinary early years arts education. International Journal of Early Years Education,24(3), 254-278.
Claxton, G. (2012). Building learning power: Helping young people become better learners. Moorabbin, Vic.: Hawker Brownlow Education.
Craft, A. (2009). Creativity in schools: Tensions and dilemmas. London: Routledge.
Craft, A. (2011). Creativity and education futures: Learning in a digital age. Stoke on Trent: Trentham.
Craft, A. R., & Chappell, K. A. (2014). Possibility thinking and social change in primary schools. Education 3-13,44(4), 407-425.
Craft, A., Chappell, K., Cremin, T., & Jeffrey, B. (2015). Creativity, education and society: Writings of Anna Craft. London: Institute of Education Press.
Dwight School New York – Spark of Innovation. (n.d.). https://www.dwight.edu/community/foundation/spark-tank
Facer, K., Craft, A., Jewitt, C., Mauger, S., Sandford, R., & Sharples, M. (2009). Building Agency in the face of uncertainty.
Facer, K. (2011). Learning futures: Education, technology and social change. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Gray, A. (n.d.). The 10 skills you need to thrive in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-10-skills-you-need-to-thrive-in-the-fourth-industrial-revolution/
Inayatullah, S. (2008). Six pillars: Futures thinking for transforming. Foresight,10(1), 4-21.
Inayatullah, S (2008). Mapping Educational Futures. Six Foundational Concepts and the Six Pillars Approach. In Bussey, M., Inayatullah, S. & Milojevic, I. (eds). Alternative Educational Futures: Pedagogies for Emergent Worlds.
- (2017, April 17). IDEAS Hub @ UWCSEA Dover – Vedant’s story. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmxJVVaX_r4
NMC and CoSN Release the Horizon Report 2017 K-12 Edition. (2017, September 18). https://www.nmc.org/nmc-horizon-news/nmc-and-cosn-release-the-horizon-report-2017-k-12-edition/
Robinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2016). Creative schools: Revolutionizing education from the ground up. London: Penguin Books.
Robinson, K. (n.d.). Do schools kill creativity? https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity
Sahlberg, P. (2015). Finnish Lessons 2.0: What Can the World Learn from: Educational Change in Finland?:2nd. New York: TEACHERS COLLEGE Press.
- (2012, January 30). Sohail Inayatullah, Introduction to Futures thinking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5MJ_APlLc4
Sterling, S., & Orr, D. W. (2001). Sustainable education: Revisioning learning and change. Cambridge: Green Books.
Sterling, S. (2010). Learning for resilience, or the resilient learner? Towards a necessary reconciliation in a paradigm of sustainable education. Environmental Education Research,16(5-6), 511-528.
Sterling, S. (n.d.). Sustainable education –putting relationship back into education. Cultivate Mag 9.
Walsh, C., Chappell, K., & Craft, A. (2017). A co-creativity theoretical framework to foster and evaluate the presence of wise humanising creativity in virtual learning environments (VLEs). Thinking Skills and Creativity,24, 228-241.
Thinking Tradigitally 