Student Teachers Facilitating Creative Learning and Teaching: Investigating the Impact of Synthesized School- based and University-directed Initial Teacher Education.

Author(s):

Sally Elton-Chalcraft(presenting / submitting)Adrian Copping Dennis Howlett Kären Mills Ian Todd

Conference:

ECER 2013

Network:

03. Curriculum Innovation

Format:

Paper

Session Information

03 SES 10 A, Teachers Collaboration in Curriculum Design

Paper Session

Time:

2013-09-12

15:30-17:00

Room:

D-402

Chair:

Jan Berkvens

Contribution

It is important for teachers in Primary schools to teach creatively and support children’s creativity in order to successfully engage children and maximize their learning (Craft 2001). This is an important challenge for education systems in many countries and project members have been comparing the English context with those in Germany and Scandinavian countries in which they have contacts. In England it is particularly important because of new opportunities for Primary teachers to be more innovative in curriculum design following a long period in which formal approaches have been imposed on them by government policy (Alexander 2010). As part of a larger project focused on creativity in Primary education (Elton-Chalcraft, Hansen, McCreery & Morris 2010; Elton-Chalcraft & Mills under review), this study focuses on the development of creative teaching and learning approaches by student teachers. These beginning teachers were on a one-year postgraduate teacher education programme designed to enable them to synthesise their learning from school-based experiences and university based activity. The programme is designed to help student teachers put into practice and evaluate strategies and factors underpinning effective teaching and learning (Dobbins 2009; Wyse & Spendlove 2007, Fogarty and Pete 2009).

Objectives: We wanted to design a teacher education programme which enabled students to put theoretical principles about creativity into practice in the classroom and then evaluate the success of this.

In this study we evaluated how students define creativity and how they put this into practice in the classroom drawing on key thinkers in this area (eg Heilman 2005, Claxton 1998 and Craft 2001). We then evaluated the extent to which our programme has provided students with the necessary knowledge and understanding to be creative teachers and to facilitate creative learning.

The research question asks: How does the design of a teacher education programme that encourages synthesis of university-directed and school- based learning influence the capacity of student teachers to successfully implement creative approaches to teaching and learning in their classrooms?

The study evaluates a framework 'six factors for creative teaching and learning', and also a tool called the 'phunometre scale' both developed by the project team in an earlier stage of the larger research project (Elton-Chalcraft, Hansen, McCreery & Morris 2010; Elton-Chalcraft & Mills under review). The framework’s six factors include: giving more ownership of learning to the children; creating fun and challenging environments and learning activities (identified on the ‘phunometre scale); focusing on achievement through intrinsic motivation; acting as a facilitator and building up a rapport with the children; engaging the children in practical activities and scenarios; and providing a safe social environment for risk taking and for learning from mistakes. In addition to evaluating the effectiveness of the teacher education programme in developing creative teachers, the study also questions and further develops the 'six factors ' framework and the ‘phunometre scale’.

Theoretical framework: We are working within the interpretivist framework (Punch 2009) using a case study approach (Savin-Baden and Major 2013). We collected data using focus groups, interviews and questionnaires.

Method

The study adopts an interpretivist stance within a case study approach and used focus groups, interviews and questionnaires to explore the perceptions of student teachers, teachers, university tutors and children in relation to creative teaching and learning, and children’s creative thinking (Punch 2009; Savin-Baden and Major 2013). This study involved one university department and five Primary schools and the sample included 25 student teachers, 10 teachers/headteachers, 5 university tutors and 25 children. In a qualitative analysis the framework of ‘six factors’ will be used to identify aspects of creativity in the teaching of the student teachers as perceived by themselves, their teachers, their tutors and a sample of the children in their classes (Ritchie & Lewis 2003). The analysis will also be used to evaluate and develop the framework of six factors and identity alternative or additional factors related to creative teaching and learning which may emerge.

Expected Outcomes

The analysis should provide evidence concerning the effectiveness of a teacher education programme that enables synthesis of school and university-based learning by student teachers to help them to build capacity in facilitating creative teaching and learning. We will assess the extent to which this has occurred by interrogating the data for evidence of teachers’ children’s and students’ perceptions of successes or limitations of the ‘six factors of learning’ and the phunometre scale, together with other strategies for creative teaching and learning, and teaching for creativity, which may emerge during analysis. The findings will inform our future course design. However given the current re configuring of teacher education provision which is underway in the English context we believe our findings will provide a useful framework for combined university-directed and school based teacher education which synthesises theory and practice. Also the research team members’ international networks have given us an opportunity to compare English curriculum design with other European contexts.

References

Alexander, R. (2010) Children, their world their education: final report and recommendations of the Cambridge primary Review London: Routledge Craft, A. Jeffrey, B. and Leibling, M. (2001) Creativity in Education. London:Continuum Claxton, G. (1998) Hare Brain Tortoise Mind: Why Intelligence Increases when you Think Less. London: Fourth Estate Ltd. Dobbins, K. (2009) Teacher creativity within the current education system: a case study of the perceptions of primary teachers, Education 3-13, 37 (2), 95-104 Elton-Chalcraft, Hansen, A., McCreery, E. and Morris D. (2010) The needs of Primary Teacher educators across England in relation to their ITE curriculum development. Teacher Education Advancement Network: available at http://www.cumbria.ac.uk/TEAN/TeacherEducatorsStorehouse/ThePrimaryCurriculum.aspx Elton-Chalcraft, S. and Mills, K. (under review ) Measuring challenge, fun and sterility on a ‘Phunometre’ scale: Evaluating creative teaching and learning with children and their student teachers in the primary school, Education 3-13. Fogarty, R. and Pete, B. (2009) How to integrate Curricula London:Sage Heilman,K (2005) Creativity and the Brain. Hove: Taylor and Francis Punch, K. (2009) Introduction to Research methods in education, London: Sage. Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J. (2003) Qualitative Research Practice, London: Sage. Savin-Baden, M. and Major,C. (2013) Qualitative Research – the essential guide to theory and practice, London: Routledge. Westby, E. and Dawson, V. (1995) Creativity: asset or burden in the classroom? Creativity Research Journal, 8 (1), 1-10. Wyse,D and Spendlove, D. (2007) Partners in Creativity: action research and creative partnerships, Education 3-13, 35 (2), 181-191.