Category: Creativity

Since a long time, intelligence and creativity have been seen as two separate abilities and creativity has been an ignored subject in psychological research. But in life, creativity is been valued more than intelligence as it comprises individuals adapting to novel situations that would lead to either result in success or failure. According to Plato, a writer is barely able to produce a work that the muse directs and similarly these days the writers mention that there is a presence of a spiritual force or nature that switches their perception to revealing the unknown, which helps in making their work creative. Subsequently, after a period of time many people found interest in this subject, due to which numerous numbers of theories were created and many lines of work on mental science revealed that the two concepts are related. But individuals were confused whether one needs to be intelligent to be creative. This essay will help understand and present few opinions on this subject.

Intelligence is defined as ‘The complete capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally and to adjust or deal with one’s environment successfully’ (Weschler, 1944) or in other words it signifies to one’s ability to understand complex ideas, to reflect from past experiences, engage in various structures of reasoning and pass-through various hindrances of thinking deliberately. Whereas the capability of an individual to create adaptive notions, that are new, practical and functional is known as creativity. Therefore, creativity helps us to adjust to novel situations and resolve issues that arise unexpectedly (Simonton, 2001). As, the meanings of these two concepts are different so are the methodologies to assess them, to test intelligence, Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and aptitude has to be assessed, whereas to measure creativity, creativity tests are been used.

Research by Cox and Terman (1926) proposed that although there is a correlation between the two concepts, it is a moderate one. This means that creative people are intelligent, but highly intelligent need not be creative, this is because of the methodology used to consider and measure intelligence. In a study, they assessed the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) of 301 people from 1450 and 1850. This study was highly criticized as there was no information collected other than from the letters, records and other writings for the need of subjectiveness for estimating the IQs. The results revealed, above average intelligence (IQ 110-119) combined with great persistence can result in better performance than superior intelligence (IQ more than 130). It is believed that creativity helps individuals solve a problem, but when a similar problem occurs again in life, intelligence plays a role in solving it. Hence, the level of intelligence is important in solving a problem creatively.

Genzel’s and Jackson (1962) were the former psychologists to demonstrate, intelligence and creativity are two unrelated concepts. They carried out a study on school children ranging from the sixth grade to twelfth grade. They were instructed that they would be participating in certain tests that will test their mental functioning and creativity. The outcome of this study discovered a nonsignificant link among the scores. Although, Wallach and Kogan (1965) studied the results and confirmed, creativity and intelligence share a foundation, as the technique adopted were the same as the ones used for testing the IQ. The methods used to conduct these tests and the indication towards the subjects is important conclude if there was a relation between intelligence and creativity.

Researchers have recognised methods to assess intelligence and creativity. They categorised intelligence tests into aptitude, that predicts one’s capability to find out new information (Stanford-Binet test, differential aptitude test and other mastery tests) and achievement tests- to examine the knowledge obtained (Myers, 2015). Researchers also affirmed that creativity is an extension of intelligence because they consist of identical mental processes.

A study conducted by Norbert Jaušovec (2000) investigated the process of cognition and its relationship with intelligence and creativity and its differences. The sample used were forty-nine university students and tutors of a psychology course, who were divided into groups of four (gifted- high IQ and high creativity; creative- high creativity and average IQ; intelligent- high IQ and average creativity; average IQ and average creativity) and the Weschler adult intelligence scale (WAIS) and creativity tests (Torrance’s creativity test and Mednick and Mednick remote association test) were instructed to attempt. The subjects were then instructed to solve two complex issues that were closed- ended and open- ended problem, then instructed to solve four creativity problems that were identical to the usual creativity tests and relating to everyday lives. In the end after each task, participants electroencephalogram brain activity was verified and calculated. The results showed that, very intelligent individuals displayed lesser mental action and greater connection were established betwixt the different regions of the cerebellum, than individuals with average intelligence. In the second task, individuals with high- creativity showed better relation, than ones with more intelligence. The study confirms that intelligence and creativity are 2 different concepts, and their abilities are different while resolving open- ended and close-ended problems. Results confirm that creativity helps solve closed- ended problems and intelligence to solve open- ended.

Guilford (1967) developed a theory known as the threshold theory, that presumed that for an individual to be highly creative, he needs to have above average intelligence. Which was examined by dividing the chosen sample into a threshold, (e.g., 120 IQ) for finding the association between lowest and highest IQ range (Sternberg, 2003). This method is been criticized as there was no specific reason to set a threshold at a particular score. A study was carried out (jauk et.al, 2013) to resolve this issue and find the connection between intelligence and creativity potential (finding things novel and useful) and accomplishment (realization of capability in life). The sample for the study were 297 students. It was conducted with the help of segmented regression analysis and solving algorithms. The sample were made to complete four sets of intelligence tests (intelligence structural battery) and other tests to evaluate creative accomplishment and potential. The outcome stated threshold for creative potential but not creative achievement, it also specified that though intelligence and creativity are linked, they have no influence over one another. The limitation for these studies were the scale of sample and its variations in participants intelligence scores.

Nusbaum and Silvia (2011) studied intelligence to support the present assumptions incorrect, about the two concepts being unrelated to the measurement of creativity. In this study, the sample were 178 females and 48 male university students. Initially, different tasks were conducted to assess divergent thinking and changes in ideas. Consequently, some participants were been told or given an idea earlier, about the strategy to be used in an alternative uses test, which was then directed to all. When observed, participants did well with fluid thinking when they were aware of the strategy and which let them use it without any interference, but individuals with lower fluid thinking, the strategy did not work. In the end, when results of the two stages were been combined, the researchers signified that creativity is associated well to intelligence than other theories.

Many studies and theories have varied views on the relationship between intelligence and creativity and some are yet to be discovered as no appropriate evidence has been found. Few theories and studies point out that not all individuals who are creative are intelligent, but intelligent can be creative and some oppose it. The IQ levels of an individual plays a role in determining creativity, therefore any variances in the IQ would tend to affect creativity. An issue that most individuals and researchers find in this study is finding a relevant definition of creativity. To summarize the relation between intelligence and creativity is highly appropriate.

Creative problem solving is an ability that can be acquired

Abstract

This paper discusses the meaning of creativity and creative problem solving as creative problem thinking is considered to be a vital asset for any person who is in a leadership role .and As creativity is increasingly being recognized as a key skill for successful managers so the reason why people need creativity in their life that for example on jobs it helps to do things better and faster. The shining side is that Creative problem solving is an ability that can be acquired. the brain is a muscle so it can be trained like other muscles in our bodies. research has proved that there are some steps that people use to be creative and how creative problem thinking to be there is a relationship between creativity and thinking out of the box so people need to come up with different and new ideas. There are some myths about creativity.

Introduction

What is creativity? If creativity thinking is how to generate a new idea by getting out of the box and what is the tool to achieve it? it is complicated to define creativity because the concept has more than one dimension but it involves an ability to come up with different and spot-on new viewpoints. Also how to break down our restrictions of knowledge about any subject so everyone can gain new insights.

Main

“Creativity is two-level, the first level is new discovery real novel or ideas which depart from what exists at a given point in time, the second one is creativity is as a characteristic possessed by many scientists in their claims about new insights or ideas” (Maslow,1954) .maslow also saw that creativity is a part of human nature. “The process of becoming sensitive to problems,deficiencies, gaps in knowledge, missing elements, disharmonies, and so on; identifying the difficulty; searching for solutions, making guesses or formulating hypotheses about the deficiencies; testing and retesting them, and finally communicating the results” (Tarrance,1965).

A scientist shows that there are some myths about creativity like that people are born with a creative instinct and they can’t learn how to be creative, the smarter you are, the more creative you are, the young people are more creative than the old, creativity is a solitary act and you can’t manage creativity.

People can acquire the ability of creative problem solving as when they look for ideas some ideas can be generated by chance so it accuses some curious or inquiring how and why. how to know to get out of the box that the thinker needs to practice, where they go and how they come back. the box is the reality where they live .inside this box all feel safe so they must know how to accept the different ideas and how to deal with them. As known that the brain is a muscle like other a muscle in the human body so people can train it how to think in creativity.

Research proved that there are some techiness that works some of the time, the key is how to mix them together and make them match each other the first step is “ asking the compelling question” that “what if” “In the imaginative phase, you ask questions such as: What if? Why not? What is the assumption? What rules can we break? What about if we looked at this backward? could we borrow a metaphor from other disciplines? The motto of the imaginative phase is: Thinking something different.”(Roger Von Oech,1980). The challenge of using creative -problem-solving techniques allows people mind’s how to play out different scenarios.

• the second step is to “find your center” as it is important that thinking must be clear so removing inner confusion.
• the third one is ‘explore the content’ as one urgent necessity is to zoom out from the content of the problem and examine the context of the situation
• .fourth is ‘seek wisdom’ by asking an experienced advisor from outside your industry for their thought on your problem can yield. even better, instead of asking them what they would do in your situation ask them what question they would ask.
• the fifth one is: that it is important to make notes on ideas as they arise as Graham tells the story of a man “who had so brilliant an idea that he went into his garden to thank God for it, and found on rising from his knees that he had forgotten it, and never recalled it”.(graham,1962).
• six one is ‘walk away’ Scientists show that anyone seeks hard to solve the problem but sometimes the best solution to this problem is to stop trying to solve it just sleep on it. but be careful t seems as though it needs to train and remind to ‘walk away’ because the mind thinks it can push its way through the problem. In the end ‘switch roles’ try to adapt your thinking, and shift your perspective so you approach the problem from another angle.

Using six thinking hates as there are facts, control, feeling, creativity, positive and negative.

Conclusion

Creativity is thinking out of the box and maybe this way not to be comfortable to people because this box is the reality of what they live .creative problem solving is an ability that people can acquire. Like lots of things around us, there is some myth about creative problem thinking that scientists proved and produce some techiness that people could use to update their thinking.

References

1. Wallgren, M. K. (1998). Reported Practices of Creative Problem Solving Facilitators. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 32(2), 134–148. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.1998.tb00811.x
2. Proctor, T. (2013). Creative Problem Solving for Managers, 4e: Developing Skills for Decision Making and Innovation. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.
3. Proctor, T. (2019). Creative problem solving for managers: developing skills for decision making and innovation. London: Routledge.
4. Eight Easy Creative Problem-Solving Techniques That Really Work Quickly. (2020, February 18). Retrieved from https://scottjeffrey.com/creative-problem-solving-techniques/

Intelligence is a construct that encompasses many ways the mind processes and expands on information and stimuli. Intelligence utilises logic and creativity utilises change. Change can happen logically but that is not necessarily creativity as most logic can be replicated or has clear standing connections, but creativity is novel… sometimes utilising intelligence. Intelligence utilizing creativity may help to not only intake and understand new ideas but expand on them in abstract analytical ways. Already when we think of Intelligence like this we see a similarity in the construct of creativity in that it is part of a group of humanistic needs including problem solving. Creativity and intelligence emerge from the same environmental factor (certification theory: Hayes, 1989)

The subsets of this construct of intelligence includes: factual knowledge; mental arithmetic; logical deductions and Spatial reasoning(which involves creativity as you have to imagine past realities and create new images formed by expansion on given information). Understanding how people feel and translating that into knowing what to do in social situations are forms of emotional and social intelligence which include creativity as you have to abstractly(but hopefully accurately) think about what could happen and base your actions on that speculation.

As a few subsetted concepts that make up intelligence utilise creativity, we can say that creativity is linked to intelligence, if not one being a subset of the other. We can explore the idea of subsets but first we must explore if creativity and intelligence are part of the same construct (coincident sets) or if they are related while being distinct separate constructs (disjoint sets: Plucker et al., 2007)

As we know that creativity is subsetted within intelligence we must now investigate the threshold theories statement; Intelligence is necessary for creativity but is only marginally correlated with it (Barron, 1969: threshold theory). From that we can conclude whether creativity is a subset of intelligence or its own separate concept.

People have different strengths. Someone who is good at processing visual information, may be poor at processing words, numbers and other symbolic content. A researcher who excels at processing symbolic content such as words and numbers and semantic meaning, might be very poor at processing behavioural data and thus relate poorly with people. As we have stated that some forms of emotionalsocial intelligence utilises creativity, we can infer creativity boosts intelligence.

Intelligence is something you work on consistently whereas creativity is something that you gather general ideas and data to build upon or analyse and thereafter an idea kind of just forms as opposed to being as conclusive as an intellectual conclusion. At its essence, creativity is just abstract thinking. It is abstracting a base or nothing to such an extent something novel is made.

Problem solving takes a degree of both factual intelligence and creative abstractness depending on the problem.

One of the most noted theories concerning the relationship between these two constructs is the threshold hypothesis. This hypothesis ‘assumes that above average intelligence represents a necessary configuration of high level creativity’. In research, this holds up until IQ levels of >120. However, according to newer understandings of creativity and its boundaries, this hypothesis seems to have unexplored areas. For example, the thresholds at which they were measured weren’t varied enough and weren’t looked at empirically.

Memory has to do with the ability to store and retrieve various kinds of information. This is necessary for intelligent people but not as much for creativity as creativity is known as making something out of nothing, so you do not need to retrieve too much information to utilise your creative brain.

People differ in their abilities to remember not only from other people, but also among various kinds of information. Divergent production has to do with the ability to access memory.

So, does intelligence predict creativity? By answering this question we can answer the question whether creativity is a subset of intelligence or a separate but linked concept.

From our initial observation that these two concepts do seem to be linked in some kind of way, we should perhaps look at Guildfords structure of intellect model which states that creativity is a subset of intelligence. Guilford isolated the various factors of thinking, separating the factors measured by IQ. His ‘Structure of Intellect’ model organized these various abilities along three dimensions. He expected that a person could be high on some of these abilities while being low on others.

Gardner (1983) describes seven types of intelligence: linguistic, musical, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily kinaesthetic, intrapersonal, and interpersonal. It is useful to consider how these different skills could contribute to or be used creatively. Musical intelligence goes hand in hand with creativeness as does spatial. However spatial is the bridge between logic and creativity.

The reason I say this is to do with a lesser known disorder called aphantasia. Less than 2% of the human population including myself suffer with this condition. It is an inability to see or imagine things in your mind. When it comes to certain parts of intelligence tests, for example spatial testing, or creativity tests, there is a struggle of visualisation of the original concept let alone the ability to modify that visualisation to speculate how the change of data may affect the visual.

We could only list possibilities in a list form. And there’s only so far you can go before it gets muddled as putting delicate images into word format can be very inefficient.

Using current intelligence tests it may be assumed that people with aphantasia would score lower than non-Aphantasia suffering people as they may be unable to do certain tasks. Which means that this lack of creative or visual thinking means that you would fail in some parts of intelligence.

However, according to a study led by the University of Exeter, People who have aphantasia may have an advantage when working in scientific and mathematical industries. These industries are typically associated with intelligent people. Therefore, there does not seem to be a positive correlation between creativity and intellect as these people with a seeming lack of some form of creativeness have an advantage when it comes to practical intellectual application.

To think creatively in abstract ways may be similar to expanding on ideas or facts presented to us by our environment.

According to one study, object visualization relates to artistic creativity and spatial visualization relates to scientific creativity, while both are distinct from verbal creativity. (Creativity, visualization abilities, and visual cognitive style, 2013)

For this we can say that while there is a correlation between intelligence and creativity, they are not part of the same construct. Where you find one you will normally find the other however that is not an exclusive relationship.

Transformations is the ability to understand changes in information, such as rotation of visual figures, or jokes and puns in the semantic area. While creativity would allow us to expand on these changes, it may not allow us to understand the whys or how these changes occurred, which is where intelligence comes in.

Implications refers to expectation. Given a certain set of information, one might expect certain other information to be true. Creativity is outside of this expectation as it is normally something that is unlikely or usual. While implications maybe unusual or you may come to creative implications (which may point to intelligence) you may make an implication that is creative but not expected or implicated by the set of information and therefore not an intelligent conclusion.

From an extended time, creativity has been a neglected subject in psychological research. This can be chiefly as a result of its invariably been widely believed that it has mystical influences or a divine nature. Plato said that the writer is barely able to produce what the Muse dictates and most frequently than not, even these days, writers and inventors typically mention the presence of a spiritual nature that switches their perspective to a revelatory one. However, at the start of the twentieth century, those curious about the human mind found a new interest in the matter. This generated unnumberable theories concerning the nature of creativity, however in all probability the foremost puzzling question was whether or not one should be intelligent to form one thing never seen before or to find a never before explored perspective. This essay can will present a few known opinions on the matter.

Wechsler (1944) defines intelligence (IQ) as “The aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally and to deal with his or her environment effectively” or in different words it refers to one’s ability to grasp complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning and to beat the obstacles of careful thinking. Whereas, Psychologists typically outline creativity as the capability to produce ideas that are each original and adaptive. In different words, the ideas should be each new, workable or functional. Thus, creativity enables an individual to adjust to novel circumstances and to resolve issues that unexpectedly arise’ (Simonton, 2001, p.2).

The correlation between creativity and intelligence has been studied. Research by Cox and Terman (1926) proposed that although there’s a possible correlation between intelligence and creativity, it’s a moderate relationship. This means that artistic people are intelligent, however but highly intelligent needn’t be creative, this is partly owing to the method we tend to study and measure intelligence. Cox and Terman tried to estimate the IQ of 301 of the foremost eminent people who lived between 1450 and 1850. The study was severely criticized because of the undependableness of the information collected from letters, records and writings, however additionally because to the subjectiveness concerned in approximating IQs. The results were undecisive, showing that high, but not the highest, intelligence combined with great persistence can achieve greater importance than those of highest intelligence did. If somebody uses creativity to resolve a problem, if they’re faced with identical drawback within the future, intelligence may be used as the brain has already learned the way to solve the problem. Conversely, so as to resolve a problem creatively, a person’s level of intelligence provides them their place to begin. So, the lower the amount of intelligence, the tougher it’ll be to resolve the problem creatively.

A study, by Gentzel’s and Jackson (1962), was the first to prove that creativity and intelligence are independent concepts. They chose a high sample of scholars starting from sixth grade to the top of high school and then they asked them to complete one mental test and 5 alleged creative tests. Their results showed an insignificant correlation between the scores. However, Wallach and Kogan (1965) reanalysed the information and concluded that four of the creativity tests were considerably related to IQ for girls and all 5 of them for boys. They theorized that results continuing to point out that intelligence and creativity share a conceptual basic as a result of the method, tests that were administered were the same as the methods used for IQ testing. It absolutely was steered that the presentation of tests and also the frame of reference of the subject are necessary in deciding whether or not there’s an association between intelligence and creativity.

In order to look at the connection between intelligence and creativity, psychologists have discovered methods of measuring intelligence and creativity. Psychologists classify intelligence tests into either aptitude that are supposed to predict one’s ability to find out new information (such because the Stanford-Binet test and also the construct mastery test) and achievement tests, which are supposed to check the knowledge that you have learnt (Myers, 2015. pp.392).

Supporters of the cognitive approaches usually assumed that the study of creativity was merely an associate extension of that of intelligence, mostly as it was thought that each involved identical main mental process. Norbert Jaušovec (2000) conducted a study that investigated the variations in cognitive processes associated with creativity and intelligence with the assistance of EEG coherence and power measures within the lower and higher alpha band. The participants were forty-nine students and lecturers taking a course in psychology. They were divided into four teams, supported on results in intelligence (WAIS) and creativity (Torrance) tests (gifted- high IQ and high creativity, creative- high creativity and average IQ, intelligent- high IQ and average creativity, average- average IQ and average creativity). Afterwards, they were asked to resolve 2 issues with 2 levels of complexity, that could be considered closed problems with closed solution situations, and later, that they had to resolve four creativity problems, some the same as those on creativity tests and others related with their everyday lives. Each task was completed when the individual’s EEG was being measured. Results showed that for the first task, highly intelligent people displayed less mental activity (which would translate to less effort) and bigger cooperation between brain areas than average intelligence people. Within the completion of the second task, extremely creative people displayed less mental activity than the average creativity participants. At the same time, creative people displayed better connections between brain areas than the talented or gifted individuals. The results suggested that creativity and intelligence are completely different concepts and abilities that differ within the neurological activities shown by individuals while solving open and closed problems. Results additionally imply that creativity incorporates a less pronounced influence on solving closed problems, likewise as intelligence on solving open problems.

Another distinguished hypothesis was developed by Guilford (1967) and is widely known the threshold theory, which assumes that above-average intelligence is a necessary condition for high-level creativity. This can be normally tested by dividing a sample to a threshold (e.g. a 120 IQ) and determining correlations for lower and higher IQ range (Sternberg, 2003). This technique has been criticized as there’s no apparent reason to set the threshold at a given IQ score. In attempt to overcome this problem, a study was conducted in 2013 (Jauk et. al) to research the link between intelligence and different indicators of creative potential (ability to get one thing novel and useful) and creative accomplishment (actual realization of this potential in real-life accomplishments). This was done using segmented regression analysis in an exceedingly sample of 297 people, that facilitates the detection of threshold in information by suggests that of repetitious procedure algorithms. Participants were needed to complete four subtests of the Intelligence Structure Battery (figural-inductive reasoning, verbal immediate memory, arithmetic flexibility, word meaning) for general intelligence, an alternate uses test for creative potential and the Inventory of creative Achievements. In the end, a threshold was found for creative potential, however not for creative achievement, that suggests that whereas intelligence and creative potential are highly connected up to a degree wherever they need no influence on one another, there’s no apparent relationship between intelligence and also the actual fulfilment of that potential. It ought to be noted that the study had limitations like the scale of the sample and also the IQ vary of the participants.

In response to the actual fact that most contemporary research focuses on the thought that creativity and intelligence are unrelated, Nusbaum and Silvia (2011) conducted a study on improved approaches to creativity measurement, that proposes that fluid and executive cognition is actually central to creative thought. The participants were 178 women and 48 men, all of them were university students. In the initial part of the experiment, the impact of fluid intelligence on creativity was observed by giving the people divergent thinking tasks and measuring their executive switching (the number of times individuals switched idea categories). Within the second part, half the sample were told what strategy they must use in an unusual Uses test, that was then administered to the complete sample. Individuals with high fluid thinking did better when they knew the strategy, that was in step with their ability to access and use it in spite of interference, whereas for the people with lower fluid thinking, the strategy tended slip. By combining the results of the 2 phases, the experimenters suggested that creativity is probably more convergent than modern theories assume.

In conclusion, views on the relationship between intelligence and creativity are extremely different and there’s proof to be found for each of them. Probably, the greatest problem of this area of research is finding an appropriate definition for the abstract thought of creativity, however there’s a need for replacement and creative perspective on the pertain to finally solve it.

“Creativity is presented in assigning to do a task; creativity must meet be of a quality of a kind and be unique in its ‘novelty’.” Creativity has many features and techniques. Such features could be deducted in a text, such as writing in metaphor techniques, wordplay or word punning, writing a comedy, satirical or sarcasm text, stressing a rhythm, repeating certain words and even some letters. Furthermore, grammar and syntax are considered creative characteristics. These features define whether a text is novel or not. “Novelty is shown in its best when a deviation or up normal feature is put to stand out in a text.” For example, ‘he na,me are Tom’; is an example of deviation in grammar and also in punctuation (orthography). In addition, to define creativity in any kind of text (written or in a discourse form or any kind of multimodal form) there are three lenses to be considered a text as a novel. These lenses are the textual lens, contextual lens, and critical lens. The following essay discusses briefly aspects of these three lenses in the concept of what creativity is and how a novel appears.

On one hand, creativity in a text is classified through its language, form, and shape. Deviation of the norm is what an analyst is looking for. First, a text analysis would classify the type of text; whether it is a written, verbal, visual, or audible text. For instance, in “Life is great great great one” a text would be analyzed through the textual lens by specifying its feature, like, repeated words “unexpected parallelism/repetition.” Moreover, creativity in all its form and shapes are made to draw attention to shed or spots the light and focuses on a text to ‘Foreground’ its novelty. Further, the usage of pronouns is to tell who is the character and its gender; ’male or female’, for example. On the surface of a text, the font and its size, color, and direction of text “top up to bottom or the other way around”, like Chinese writings, for instance, would indicate its source and aim. Also when these characteristics show up by a non-local writer, like, not a Chinese author using a Chinese way of writing; would be considered de-familiarization in orthography.

On the other hand, the second lens is the contextual lens. It looks at the surroundings of a text. Its lens literary focuses on a text, but it looks at it from different angles and furthers its contexts to a wide and wider range. In addition, similar to story analysis; the contextual lens would analyze a text in all its far meaning. In addition, an analyst would seek the location of the text; its setting ‘time and place’ of a text would answer the reader or the analyst few questions of ‘Why it was written here and why it was written at this era or this particular timing.’ For instance, the English author William Shakespeare wrote many plays that chose a setting in Italy in a very critical political era in England and Europe. Furthermore, the message or the purpose of a text could be seen in what a writer wants to send or what she or he needs the reader to receive. For instance, a feminist poet writes ‘author’ instead of the word ‘author’ stressing out the letter ‘e’ in replacement of the letter ‘o’. This not only shows the orthography uniqueness and de-familiarization but also shows the ‘auther’ intended aim of her intentional message of the female point of view to stand out. There are many other aspects to look for in the contextual lens, such as the words chosen, dialect and register, tone, and mode of the writer. All of these features; including the kind of genres it is written of and for would resolve any puzzle around any type of text; especially in its ‘sociocultural’ context.

Specialized professional analysts would value a text and put it in a certain view according to the critical lens. This level of analysis would not be considered if the analyst takes many aspects in mind; cultural variation is one of most to beholden. For example, a critic should be familiar with cultural differences. Like tripe tradition from Saudi Arabia may be highly criticized by a British critic if he or she is not aware of the Saudi culture. In reference to this example, putting a shoe or feet in front of someone’s face is highly criticized in Saudi Arabia and its region and it is considered an insult in the local culture. However, this habitual behavior is normal and is not even considered in England or Europe. Critics therefore must be aware of cultural dimensions, formal and informal; whether it is viewed in a workplace or within an intimate relationship. Therefore, the critical lens carries its dimensions to further ‘sociocultural awareness’ and look at much cultural behavior, even funny and humorous ones.

In conclusion, aspects of the three lenses look at what novelty and its deviation feature that foreground it. Creativity shows up in many forms through textual, contextual, and critical views. The textual lens focuses more on language. The contextual lens travels all around to see further a writer’s background, aims, and contexts. Pro-analysts are more understand, evaluate and put a context into better estimation only when they are aware of differences in cultures and sources.

What is more important, imagination or knowledge? This is an eternal question. Knowledge is information that we receive thanks to the experience of our environment and our own experience at the moment. Information about everything discovered or experienced is knowledge. But imagination is needed to put that information together to come up with new results and solutions, that’s why it’s more important in my opinion.

The famous physicist Albert Einstein once said: “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand”. And I support his point of view.

Knowledge, no doubt has a role to play. Without knowledge, imagination does not have any substance to work with. Imagination puts together already available information in a manner to come up with new solutions to new problems. Without these two working in parallel, nothing new could have been created.

For example, all of us must have surely come across that in school we all knew one guy or girl who would mug up the whole book from top to bottom. No question would be left in the book which was not known to him or her. And there would be another guy or girl who would not toil so much. He or she would only understand how to solve the questions, the methodology, and the reasoning behind all of it. Let’s say a few questions were asked which were not in the book. The first guy/girl would cry foul over not being able to solve the questions since they were ‘out of syllabus’. While the other guy/girl, though slower in speed, would solve all the questions (even the new ones) and get a better score than the latter. Now the question arises, who among the above two is truly educated? Definitely not the rote learner! This points to the fact that imagination and creativity trump knowledge in solving new problems. Knowledge can get you through old problems easily, but only imagination can help you tackle new problems.

In light of the above discussion, it can be concluded that knowledge is definitely required, but knowledge in isolation cannot help us. To make true progress in life, knowledge must be accompanied by imagination. These rules apply to every sphere of our lives. This is why I believe that imagination is more important than knowledge.

Without creativity to boost our lives and capture our attention, life would be completely uneventful. In their article, authors Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman state, “All around us are matters of national and international importance that are crying out for creative solutions, from saving the Gulf of Mexico to bringing peace to Afghanistan to delivering health care”. This applies to school education as well. Modern kids are not creative, and we need to help them become creative. The solution to this problem is simple: boost the creativity of the teacher, and you will boost the creativity of the student. My opinion on this topic is that creativity means doing something you would normally do in a different way. Therefore, if the teacher does something that he or she could have done one way differently, that is being creative.

First of all, our subjects and the way our subjects are taught could become more interesting. For example, consider science. Instead of having students learn off of blackboards, videos, or textbooks, teachers should allow them to do experiments on their own. Allow them to discover for themselves (with additional help from textbooks) why something happens. Make science interesting for the students. Capture their attention. As George Washington Carver says, “When you can do a common thing in an uncommon way; you will command the attention of the world”. This means that if a teacher teaches creatively, in a way different from usual, he/she ‘will command the attention of the world’, or, in this case, his students.

Second, if a teacher teaches in a way that is creative, students will follow his example. It will teach them to be creative and nourish them for when they are older. Then, thanks to the teacher, they will accomplish something. The famous painter Vincent Van Gogh claimed: “Great things are not done by impulse, but a series of small things brought together”. This means that if we help the kids think creatively, we will be preparing them for a more important day, the day they grow up. And when they are grown up, they will accomplish great things, not by impulse, but because we helped them when they are younger.

Third, there does not need to be a class teaching creativity. Students can learn to be creative on their own. By teaching a class on creativity, teachers are basically showing the kids how to be creative. However, that is something students should figure out for themselves. Teachers should let them be creative. Let them think up things to keep them from being bored. Let them be curious. Dorothy Parker asserts: “The key for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity”. Therefore, we do not need to teach creativity, we only need to teach creatively.

Many people, however, can argue against this statement and say, “We should teach a class in creativity”. This claim is simple to refute just by observing student behaviors. In a class that teaches creativity, how many people would actually learn? Not many. Most of the students would probably be bored waiting for the day to be over. It would just be an additional class that they have to get through before they can go home. On the other hand, in a class that teaches creatively, not one student would get bored. Why? They would be curious, they would be interested, and they would want to learn. And they would learn. Instead of not paying attention, they would listen to the teacher’s every word, until he/she has finished saying it.

We can conclude that creativity should become part of our daily life. In being creative while teaching, students will be interested in schoolwork. They will want to learn. Also, they will follow such an example, and perhaps accomplish something great in the future. Therefore, there is no need to teach creativity, only to teach creatively. Creativity is essential for life.

Now that we know that creativity is essential to life, it is the job of teachers to be role models, paving the way for students to become creative. It may not seem like it matters now, but in the future, being creative can make a big difference: in your home, at your job, and in the environment around you. Being creative is what helps the world progress. If everything happened the same way every single day, what progress would be made?

To initiate any scientific investigation, a researcher needs to collect factual information. Based on that factual knowledge; the researcher can understand where there is a gap in knowledge. This process gives birth to the problem, which needs to be solved. A problem is engendered on the ground of the existing gap in knowledge about the concept or contradiction in existing concepts. It leads to several investigations for a better understanding of the concept. The roots of the word ‘problem’ lie in the Greek language, where term stands for any proposed or constructed question or a matter state, which needs to be examined in any given situation.

According to Kerlinger, a problem is defined as ‘an interrogative sentence or statement that asks what relation exists between two or more variables. The answer to the question will provide what is having sought in the research.” So “a problem represents the information acquired by a researcher and seeks solutions for it.’ It means that the problem is any complicated situation; we need to search for a solution for it. Identification of particular research problem requires a sense of consciousness, mindfulness, and awareness about the ongoing phenomenon. Research process initiated with the identification of the problem is considered to be a building block of research. It is most challenging to frame a research problem because there are no precise rules, steps, and principles. With the assistance of previous or ongoing knowledge sources, minute observations, naturally occurring phenomena, and careful examination of the environment and its changes give a base for the identity of a research problem.

Previous investigations act as a pioneer work for the formulation of a high-quality research problem successfully. They act as a decent resource of secondary data, which can be used in systematic analytical researches. The results and consequences in the previous investigation give a platform of understanding about the concept, which gives birth to the null or alternative hypothesis. However, in the case of exploratory research work, there is no hypothesis before starting the research investigation. There are various sources from where the previous investigation can be referred (such as books, articles, Journals, internet study material, word of mouth, seminar or conferences, magazines, a cult belief and many more). As the present topic lies in ‘educational psychology’ the investigator tried to overview the nature and trend of research conducted in the past several decades, which have been covered in the second chapter.

In the modern era, Creativity is one concept, which everyone wants to achieve, but it is not an ability that one can acquire. It is an individual inculcated ability, which needs a precise source to trigger. Earlier, level of intelligence or IQ (intelligence quotient) score were considered a representative of the level of success (Strenze, 2007) but in the present day, that is not enough. Being creative is the immediate call of the hour. Creativity is a cognitive process, a mental activity that is an insight of an individual. It is a novel idea, which has been produced by an individual for solving any problem in a novel way. Enhancing creativity or creativity level in the individual (Stein, 1974) can be achieved by various techniques.

The perfect time of application of these techniques is right from the school, where the child comes to learn new things, and they create the building block of individual learning world. Erikson (1959) & Piaget (1983) suggested that the delicate phase of child development is between 11 years to 14 years. During this phase, we should focus on creativity enhancement. Early intervention of enhancing Creativity at this sensitive period of development is more effective and beneficial than a later stage. It is due to the reason the children have just started approaching puberty or just entered in adolescence, and they are still naïve and ready to learn anything that comes in their way. According to Rothenberg (2016), young kids are often unprompted, free and creative; they do not produce unique and valuable products. Meaningful Creativity initiates in adolescence due to the development of the abstract thinking capacity in addition to the creative Janusian, homo-spatial and separation & connection articulation processes (Rothenberg, 2015). These processes develop initially in adolescence due to the practical or efficient shaping and adaptive fixation as modes of dealing and experiencing with adolescent’s development. It is the perfect age for initiating the concept of being creative in adolescences.

Hence in the present research work, the selected age group of investigation is in between 12 to 16 years as it is an appropriate age group to provide interventions for the enhancement of Creativity.

Creativity enhancement is a call for the hour. Educators and counsellors should work on identification, escalate, and support numerous styles of Creativity for the enhancement of the students and client creative productivity. There are no shortcuts on the road of creativity development. In teaching, creative thinking skills play a vital role at both ends; teacher (technique provider) and learner (technique getter). Creativity thinking skills tend to develop new insight, a fresh perspective and a new way to approach a problem or things. Many methods have been designed to enhance the creativity level of the individual or to assist individuals in generating original ideas, for both the individual level and the group processing level. Individuals can use purposive strategies for channeling their thoughts in a productive new direction.

Brainstorming is the most used method that can be used at any point of time, even though other techniques can be used in producing insight of novel ideas in an individual, such as Synectics or SCAMPER or Torrance Incubation Model, which consist of a lot of other techniques. Those can be either used individually or together, for production of a fresh perspective in an individual. To figure out which is the best strategy, or a combination of those strategies is a task that an individual has to learn during the process of development. The teacher plays a critical role in the development of the individual. The teacher has the nation’s future in his/her hands, and they deal with the youth of the nation. Therefore, they have a responsibility of building strong pillars for better development. The selection of the right techniques and introducing those techniques at the right time for the development of the individual has to be decided by the school staff.

Through studies one thing is clear that Creative drama training (Berretta and Privette, 1990; Garaigordobil , 2006; Ma, 2006; Karakelle, 2006; Sak and Oz, 2009; Garaigordobil and Berrueco 2011; Hoffmann and Russ, 2016; Momeni, Khaki, and Amini, 2017) and divergent thinking techniques such as brainstorming (Al-Bwli, 2006; Al-qarni, 2011; Al-Khatib 2012) and SCAMPER (Moreno, Yang, Hernandezand, and Wood, 2014; Khawaldeh1, and Ali,2016; Ozyaprak, 2016) have shown positive impact on the development of various aspects of Creativity. However, they all lack in development of a fixed module for the enhancement of various aspect of Creativity.

Through the above review, it is clear that Creativity has the potential to flourish, but we have to use appropriate kind of creativity techniques in any given situation. Brainstorming and SCAMPER were two very effective techniques in which experimenter had little control over the direction of the creative thinking process. Creativity dramatic allows an individual to play in groups and enhance their thought process.

Therefore, there is a requirement of identification of fixed module or steps, which can be followed for achievement creativity enhancement goal.

Whenever we talk about the concept of creativity enhancement in educational level, one concept, which comes in everyone’s mind, is the relationship of Creativity with academic achievement. So, there is a requirement for understanding the relationship between Creativity and academic achievement. Academic achievement is how effectively student at any level can perform at their academic level. Creativity can be considered as being one of the critical elements that require special attention when we talk in terms of academic achievement.

Academic achievement and creativity is one of the most controversial relationships. Researchers are still not able to prove high Creativity influences academic achievement. The two aspects got attention during earlier studies of Getzels and Jackson (1962), they were counted as a pioneer of highlighting the role that Creativity plays in academic achievement.

Since then, various studies have been conducted to explore this relationship. The studies have shown connection (Ai, 1999; Trivedi & Bhargava, 2010; Pishghadam, Khodadady & Zabihi, 2011), no relation (Naderi, Abdullah, Aizan, Sharir, & Kumar (2009); Olatoya, Akintunde & Ogunsanya (2010) and low correlation (Rindermann and Neubauer, 2004) between Creativity and academic achievement.

Therefore, this relationship desires attention for a better understanding of the concept.

Creativity and intelligence are considered to be the basic need of an individual for survival in a progressive society. Nearly all the discoveries and intervention are the result of highly intelligent or creative people. The relationship between the level of Creativity and intelligence has always drawn the attention of researchers for many years. These shared relationships have been discussed, hypothesized, theorized and have been a matter of research ever since the psychological sciences came into existence. Kim (2005), did a meta-analysis to understand this relationship between Creativity and intelligence. In her analysis, she used 21 studies out of which 45,880 participants were selected. She found out that the shared relationship between them is not stable. Researchers like Getzel & Jackason (1962); Dellas & Marie (1971); Nakano, Wechsler, Campos, & Milian (2015) believe that there is a secure connection between these variables. Whereas some studies have shown that the relationship between Creativity and intelligence is not clear at all. (Cropley & Maslany, 1969; Furnham, Bateya, Anand & Manfield, 2008; Gino & Ariely, 2012).

Therefore, there is a requirement of research work in this area for the clear and better understanding of the relationship between Creativity and intelligence. Thus, the following objectives were postulated.

Introduction

The purpose of this essay is to critically analyze the pedagogical perspectives on play and creativity, by exploring the role of the adult in these areas. Initially, I will explore my own pedagogy by discussing now the influences of my personal and professional experiences have impacted this, whilst taking into consideration the values, attitudes, and principles which have shaped my practice. In this essay, I intend to explore the pedagogy of play and creativity and its place within the early years setting.

Background

I am currently working in a private sector nursery in the city as a practitioner who sets out to ensure a safe, nurturing, and stimulating environment where all children and parents are treated with respect and fairly and where they receive the highest possible standard of the service. The service offers a wide range of pedagogical opportunities which enable children to fully explore and experience all aspects of the settings teaching and learning mechanisms which will enable children to gain the most out of their learning from themselves and the staff. There is a wide range of stimulating experiences and outcomes including Forest Schools participation which originated from Scandinavia. We provide the children with the opportunity to create and engage in their own play through the use of natural resources and real tools through supervision and are privileged with beautiful, large, natural outdoor spaces throughout each age group.

Part 1

Pedagogy can be defined in many different ways and one way in my own understanding is that it is the interactions between adults and children in their provision of learning strategies. According to Leach and Moon (2008) and Stephen (2010), the term pedagogy can form a wide definition in many different parts of the world. The way we implement our practice is key as we must ask ourselves ‘why do we do what we do?’ By reflecting and extending on our own practice through observing and implementing experiences, we are ensuring each child is receiving the best possible care and education and is in a learning environment which will enable them to grow and develop as a unique individual to the best of their ability. It is important to not only think about the learners within themselves but it is equally important to consider the learning experiences offered to the individual and group learners by the adult.

“Educators who can move between thinking about learners and thinking about how their learning experiences are shaped have a powerful approach to pedagogy.” Anning and Edwards (2010, p10).

Taking into consideration my pedagogical thoughts and ideas (Appendix 1, p…..) my definition of pedagogy is The way we shape our interactions with children and support their learning and development through the learning mechanisms offered. It is about ensuring the child is at the center and reflecting upon what we do and why we do it.

It is believed that pedagogy should have an emphasis on interactions and relationships, however, this isn’t always the case as these actions, described by Stephen (2012, p227-228) can be seen as a ‘tacit understanding’. I have, in my own practice been aware of my connections made with children and families and can consider how these will positively impact them. Part of recent legislation (Scottish Government, 2014, p31) states relationships are highly significant in child development.

Taking pedagogy into consideration has enabled me to think more about my practice and consider how to conduct myself in my profession and provide an attitude and display actions that can enable me to act appropriately to the individual needs of the children and assess and monitor my practice. I am able to focus more on my work ethic with the children and within the setting to provide positive outcomes for all (Girfec). In relation to pedagogy, I am continuously aiming to ensure that positive outcomes and experiences are being met. Examples of this can include; adult-interactions which involve shared thinking and open-ended questioning to extend the children’s thinking; having a curriculum knowledge and understanding of child development; to provide formative and effective feedback to children during activities and experiences. I also feel that it is key to giving children their voice and for us adults to listen. It is important to provide teacher-initiated group times and enlightening and useful play activities. As a practitioner, I ensure a warm and interactive relationship is being formed and provided the most efficient practice towards the children which is key. Looking into pedagogy has provided me with a broader reflection and understanding of the real meaning of the term and put it into practice.

Part 2

Play contributes greatly to children’s learning and well-being in their everyday lives (Wood and Attfield, 2005, cited in Wood, 2007, p.309). Play supports children’s developmental stages cognitively, physically, socially, and emotionally (Goldstein, (2012, p.27)). He has also highlighted the negative effects due to lack or a reduced amount of play time given to children due to resources and lack of play opportunities. Play contributes a great deal to a child’s life on an everyday basis enabling them to frown and develop into a unique individual.

Play can be seen as a natural experience for children, however, this can be argued to be more of a social experience led by various interactions with adults either within the setting or in the home environment according to Wood, (2013, p.98). However, despite this dispute, Bruce (2011, p.93) observes and supports children in ensuring they reach the highest level of achievement to their ability.

Children are able to adapt their play as and when they feel they are ready and whether this is with the aid of an adult or not they should have the opportunity offered to gain such evident experiences and skills to help them through the learning life. It is important to stop and try and think about how a child may be processing their instructions and actions through their cognitive ability which can result in why they are performing the way and what they are within their play environment.

Vygotsky who was known for his scaffolding theory believed that children’s knowledge can be built upon and developed as he obtained a ‘socio-dramatic’ play as a crucial learning cycle (cited in Hedges, 2010, p.28 in Brooker and Edwards, 2010). Scaffolding within a play provides children with outcomes where interactions between children and adults are able to build connections with each other. Therefore, it is believed that the pedagogy of play is built up through the co-construction between adult and child (Rogers, 2011, p.39).

It has been said that play inspires creativity and imagination. Creativity has been described as a ‘process where ideas can be originally developed’ (Robinson, 2011, p.3). Additionally, creativity has been viewed as the shaping of existing knowledge to form new knowledge (Craft, 2002, p.33; Beetlestone, 1998, p.3 and Duffy, 2009, p.19). It is also considered that creativity enables emotions and feelings to be expressed freely. Play can be seen as most effective when it is child-led and child-initiated in their own experiences (Sian-Blatchford, Sylva, Muttok, Gilden, and Bell, 2002, p.12). In consideration of this, wood, (2013, p.141) believes that both interactions between children and adults are paramount. Adult interactions should be responsive to the children’s ideas and interests and the adults’ involvement should be advocated by the child. This can be evident along with Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development as it is clear that the interactions and involvement that an adult may have can take the child from requiring support to making achievements independently (Johnston and Nahmad-Williams, 2009, p.277).

Creativity is a fundamental attribute to enable adaptation and response in a fast-changing world (Barron, 1989; Guber, 1989; Henry and Walker, 1991). Creativity has become a growing area of interest within education and the wider society. Promoting and ensuring the development of creativity in education is in the foreground in the U.K with the influential ‘all our futures’ report from the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE, 1999). Craft, (2000, p.38) describes creativity as “all our intelligence working together” ensuring outcomes that are current and relevant are being provided. At the foundation of the creative process is the child’s determination to express themselves and their support network to act as an active thinkers. Lucas, (2001), influenced by Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences (1983), believes that creativity involves all of our intelligence and profound knowledge working collaboratively together. Education Scotland (no date) also closely considers creativity as a way of thinking where we look at things that are familiar to ourselves closely and with an original and current perspective, study problems with an open mind, and use our ideas to search for new possibilities. Making connections is seen as central to learning and is part of many definitions of creativity (Lucas, 2001; NACCCE, 1999; Duffy, 1998; Beetlestone, 1998). This can be linked to Crafts ‘big c’ and ‘little c’.

Creativity has been divided into two forms ‘big c’ and ‘little c’ creativity. Craft, (2002, p.52) defines ‘big c’ as fresh modernism which have a great impact upon wider society, whereas, she defines ‘little c’ as everyday experiences being useful and relevant (craft, 2002, p.55). In relation to this, Beetlestone’s three-tier theory and Compton’s Continuum of creativity link in alongside the division of creativity. According to Beetlestone (1998), the three tires of creativity represent a continuance from being able to self–express to making new things, forming connections, and being able to problem solve (Johnston and Nahamd-Williams, p38-40). It is essential that children are able to gain these skills along with exploring their abilities and environment in order to flourish. The role of the adult should be to encourage the child to feel a sense of curiosity, and self-expression and promote independence for the child.

Cremin and Barnes (2010) believe there are six features of a creative pedagogical viewpoint. Alongside this, Robinson (2010) identifies three relevant tasks to take into consideration when teaching for creativity; encouraging, identifying creative strengths, and fostering which are highlighted in Cremin and Barnes (2010) features also. Cremin and Barnes (2010) focus on these six features; a learner-centered attitude; the use of questioning including open-ended questions; producing space, allowing time and freedom along with forming relationships; the take on of new and fresh teaching approaches; promoting engagement and modeling risks whilst enabling children to create their own risks (Robinson, 2011). As well as all of this, it is highlighted that there is a belief in ‘building on children’s self-esteem by Cremin and Barnes (2010) according to Robinson (2011). By ensuring this, a relaxed and trusting atmosphere within the environment must be present in order for the learner to develop further when they are at the center of their learning. As trusting and supportive relationships may be evident, there is information that creativity can be linked with collaborative and effective working opportunities (Dillan, Craft, Best, Rigby and SIMMs, 2007; Wood and Ashfield, 2008). It is also important to ask open-ended questions where there is an opportunity to problem solve and create possible thinking for children according to Robinson (2010). Asking questions, testing ideas, problem-solving, making connections, and using imagination and creativity (Duffy. 1998; Robinson, 2011) can ‘encourage deeper understanding and lateral thinking’ according to Cremin et al. (2006). It is essential for a learner to be nurtured in order for the individual to succeed and fulfill their abilities.

Part 3

Reflecting upon my pedagogical approach through play (Appendix 2), it is clear that children create their own play at times and adult interaction can be limited. However, Staff offer play experiences based on each child’s needs and interests which are vital to the child’s learning journey. As a staff, it is crucial that I support the children which can be seen as part of Vygotsky’s scaffolding theory. Children should not be left to create their own play all the time as they can learn equally under adult supervision as Fleer, (2015, p.1801) agreed. In relation to this, I have considered in great length my role working with children, taking this into consideration, my role and interactions can be seen in (Appendix 3). Due to efficient and well-structured practices and strict guidelines, it is apparent that I am unable to always interact responsively and effectively with the children at times due to such a high demand for policies and procedures to follow. However, this is something that, after studying in great length pedagogy I am open and very keen to change and also encourage and prompt colleagues to participate in the same work ethic.

Within my setting, we understand play to be a schooling cycle where our interactions are significant and of great relevance. Recent legislation (Scottish Government, 2014, p.9) states that there are many interactions towards experiences that are offered and that are supported in children’s learning process (Scottish Government, 2014, p.51). Between staff within my setting, it was discussed that we value play to a great extent and it is central to a child’s learning, but alongside this, it is equally important to have the role of an adult model such experiences and life attributes. We provide learning through play and Wood, (2013, p.101) states that practitioners should be able to offer many valuable experiences in play through the use of pedagogical approaches.

Part 4

In establishing and expanding on my professional and experienced practice it has been recognized that children’s play can be interrupted or sculpted unnecessarily, however, we must remember that although adult interaction is elementary, it is important to know when adult interaction is required. It has been agreed as a team that this is an area which is needing more time and work out into it, which may be the case of more self-reflection as a whole team. We will interact as equally as much as we stand back and observe. We must remember that children’s play and creativity can be formed through Vygotsky’s scaffolding which promotes support. As a setting, we think it is vital to listen to the children and aim to ensure that the experiences and activities we offer support the needs and interests of the children. Within the setting, we have taken pride in what we offer and an example of what we offer is Forest Schools which originated in Scandinavia. This has been a great success as it caters to all children of all age ranges in many different aspects.

Through the reflection process, as a staff team, we must question our practice more and ask ourselves why? what? and how? It is important that as a service, we look to promote the thinking of how we can maintain a pedagogical approach to support and work alongside play and creativity. For this to be successful we will focus more on our own values and principles, both as a team and as individuals. There must be more effective and relevant adult interaction. In reflection of myself as a practitioner, I am aware more since focusing on pedagogical perspectives, involving play and creativity, I must observe more and be prepared to interact and offer children the experiences they deserve. Adult interaction is present within my setting, however, there could always be more or less at times given each situation. A lot of adult interaction can be seen as common according to Samuelson and Carlson, (2008, p.623) who propose this is the case where most children’s learning vines from adult-controlled activities.

Conclusion

To conclude my findings, I have arrived at the conclusion of play and creativity are fundamentally linked with one another in the progression of children’s learning. From the perspective of one’s own pedagogy, it is crucial that as practitioners within a setting to think about our individual values and principles, not only within pedagogy but within our practice in reacting to children’s learning and development. It is evident that it is our values and principles which is at the center of why we do what we do. By taking all of the above into consideration whilst we push forward with our pedagogical outlook, it is important we look and focus on the adult interaction displayed as it is those which children’s learning and wellbeing are influenced.

Whilst looking in detail into the readings neighboring the pedagogy of play and creativity, my findings have been significant in evidencing that adult interactions play a large part in children’s learning, however, it is equally important to enable children to take control and shape their own relationships and interactions. We must carefully consider the pedagogical impacts more and offer more of a shared focus a d understanding in order to shale our pedagogy and develop play and creativity within our settings. How much adult interaction should be provided? Can too much adult interaction be effective or too little adult interaction be seen as being unresponsive to children’s needs?

Referencing

1. Beetlestone, F, (1998) Creative Children, Imaginative Teaching, Buckingham: McGraw-Hill Education.

No one refutes the enormous advantages of education to humans, and for thousands of years, schools have been considered the most powerful representative of education. Parents always have a desire to send their children to prestigious schools with the belief that kids will benefit the most from the educational programs offered at schools. However, it remains controversial whether schooling systems all over the world are really the best place to educate our modern offspring. It seems to have an obvious answer to it, but many educators now regret saying no. I believe that schools have more disadvantages than we traditionally think, which are creativity limits, potential deterioration, and natural learning restrictions. This essay will focus on those limitations and point out clearly the reasons behind them as well as make some specific recommendations on overcoming those existing drawbacks.

First of all, schools fail to foster students’ creativity. Creativity here is defined as an essential cognitive process by which ideas are generated, developed, and transformed. Creativity is well developed through the way children make a diversity of questions to draw newly profitable conclusions, nevertheless, in the majority of contemporary schooling systems, teachers impose their knowledge on their students, which eventually makes kids neglect to ask why. Most Vietnamese teachers, for instance, only train youngsters to solve equations with repeated formulas or write an essay with a detailed given outline but do not let them come up with anything original. Thus, all that children can do is become a copycat since they are forced to obey the rules as well as the formats of provided paradigms, and any novel idea made by children on their own that do not meet the mold is highly rejected. This passive teaching deprives students of their curiosity and the ability to “discover new information about a problem and to create a new and unexpected solution” (Gopnik, 2011). In other words, current methods of teaching at schools are likely to make children become learners lacking their own initiative, hence not only do they not advance their creativity, but they show less interest in researching and extending their grasp of school subjects as well.

In the famous Ted-talk, “Do schools kill creativity”, Robinson (2007) claimed that “schools kill creativity”, arguing that “we don’t grow into creativity, we grow out of it. Or rather we get educated out of it”. Like other recent studies, Robinson’s statement proves that children’s creative ability is hindered by schools. According to Runco, Acar & Cayidgag (2017), there was a discrepancy between creativity displayed in and outside of the school. Significantly more creativity was reported in the activities occurring outside compared to in school. A number of students surveyed say that they can obtain practically handy knowledge and trigger their imaginativeness thanks to outside experience rather than sole rigid lectures in class.

Secondly, the public instruction system is gradually oppressing children’s endowments. The hierarchy of subjects which mostly prioritizes Maths, Science over Art or Music orients children to invest their efforts in the seem-to-be-crucially-important subjects and weakens their true potential. Case in point: there are students who have talents in Arts, but they do not have favorable conditions to further develop their skills as what they are good at is often ignored or even stigmatized at schools. Instead, children must mindlessly follow career paths laid out in advance for them by adults.

In addition, public education places a lot of emphasis on testing which requires lots of memorization. Not only do these grading systems evaluate students’ limited understanding of their wide ranges of knowledge outside schools, but they also cause intelligence loss (Peter, 2015). These examinations only assess students based on their academic abilities rather than other kinds of intelligence. Without successful test achievements, the school system deems kids a failure. Consequently, many highly-talented, brilliant people who perform poorly on academic tests often fail to recognize who they really are and what true abilities they can accomplish. For example, Gillian Lynne, a choreographer, was thought to have a learning disorder when she was at school as she could hardly concentrate. It turned out that she had an aptitude for dancing and the normal schooling system was not suitable for her. In short, our curriculum, as well as an assessment system, continuously contribute to the negative traditional stereotype that not-left-brains cannot succeed.

Furthermore, even grading systems are currently marked as faulty sometimes because of increasing grade inflation happening at various schools throughout the world. In the article “Grade Inflation Gone Wild” by Stuart Rojstaczer, he states “Today grades continue to go up regardless of the quality of the education and “A” is average at many schools.” Grades thus can no longer reflect exactly and effectively students’ capabilities as A now is much easier to achieve. What is worse, the inflated grades have had negative influences on students and led to potential deterioration, which includes students tending to give minimal effort in class and spend much less time studying as they assume that only with little effort can they easily get an A in their exams. This may result in a generation of students with bad habits of learning and poorly-educated background.

Moving on to the next point, school is separating children from the real world, which narrows their ability to natural learning. Children are compelled to be in school for at least 4 to 10 hours a day, so they just have only 3 to 6 hours out of school. But that is not all, moreover, the schoolwork does not end there; they have to waste half of their imagined-free time finishing homework and other extra tasks. A simple calculation reveals that children have only 2 to 4 hours available for self-discovery. However, compelling research indicates that natural learning without top-down instruction and coercion helps children absorb knowledge much better. Buchsbaum et al. (2011) wrote that it was self-directed learning, not forced instruction, that elevated both learning outcomes and creativity.