Arda Culpan, A. (2010). Promoting Creativity through Arts Education.

Learning

Matters: Imagine That. V. 15, (1), pp 335-38.

Creativity in education is a necessity, nurturing imagination and curiosity – two vital

elements that can drive learning for us all’ (Cultural Ministers Council & Ministerial

Council for Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs 2005, p. 3). While this

concept is by no means new or limited to the arts, such recent emphasis resonates

with my own perspective on creativity in arts education. While the basic ideas

presented here are drawn from my own teaching experience, which encompasses

visual arts and integrated arts courses involving visual arts and music education at

both undergraduate and postgraduate levels of teacher education, they can be

equally applied to education in dance, drama, media and visual communication

across year levels.

In particular, the place of creativity in arts education is well exemplified by Eisner

(2002), who contends that the arts require flexibility, expression, imagination and the

ability to consider relationships and to make shifts in initial thinking. Furthermore,

while creativity is a multi-faceted concept that defies precise definition, skills such as

observation, perception, curiosity, imagination and emotional sensitivity are considered

to be important elements of creativity, not only in the arts, but also across intellectual

boundaries (Hoffert 2004; Culpan & Hoffert 2009).

Accordingly, arts teachers need to nurture their capacity for creative pedagogy not

only by drawing on their past experiences, but also by revisiting their own creative
Published by the Catholic Education Office Melbourne in Learning Matters, volume 15, number 1, 2010, pp. 35–37
sensitivities through exposure to various new art forms, and their own artistic

practice. This is not because they should all be practising artists in their own right – for

most teachers with high teaching and administrative commitments this would be

impossible. But they do need opportunities to experience the empowerment

associated with a renewed awareness of their own creativity (Craft 2003) and the

myriad of creative elements that impact on so many facets of their own and their

respective students’ lives.

Similarly, arts teachers need opportunities for sustained dialogue within the wider

community of arts teachers. This is especially important, as emerging theories and

trends do not always automatically translate into practice for hectic teachers or those

isolated from other arts teachers. In addition, while teachers’ pedagogical preparation

may have been based on the enduring leitmotiv that the arts curriculum is at the

forefront of fostering creativity, this notion needs to be continually nurtured within an

ethical framework that encourages multiple perspectives and a sense of wisdom

(Craft 2003). Implicit here is the concept that arts education must promote a fluid

interaction of creative, aesthetic, critical and conceptual skills in order to provide a firm

experiential and intellectual understanding necessary for artists as well as citizens

within a complex society (Corner 2005). Similarly, pedagogy in creative practice ‘must

recognize individual differences in learning styles, and [value] the ideas of width,

diversity and personal autonomy’ (Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation (CGF) 1989, p.

27), especially as, ‘educational equity is likely to increase as the diversity of forms

grows’ (Eisner 1998, p. 179). Allied to this, a key arts education principle (promoted

within our School of Education) is that engaging any students in creative work is not

just about encouraging ‘free expression’ and believing that any response is acceptable

(Culpan 2008a). Indeed, as the CGF (1989) argues, a significant advance in

creativity in arts education depends on general recognition that:

Published by the Catholic Education Office Melbourne in Learning Matters, volume 15, number 1, 2010, pp. 35–37
 Creativity is not a special faculty with which some children are endowed and others

are not but that it is a form of intelligence and as such can be developed and

nurtured like any other mode of thinking because creative growth requires discipline,

previous experience and a firm grounding in knowledge (p. 27).

There are also a number of associated considerations. First, the basic creative

processes in arts education entail the preparation or generation of ideas, incubation,

illumination and substantiation. Therefore, students need time to work through each

stage with clear opportunities to develop discipline-specific, theoretical knowledge,

build conceptual and technical skills, share ideas, gain timely constructive feedback,

reflect on their progress, and make changes when applicable. Above all, students

need to understand that ‘art[s] activities are not simply designed to produce pretty

pictures [as such], but to stimulate, develop and refine a wide range of very

sophisticated modes of thought’ (Eisner 1998, p. 87), and that these are central to

creative activity.

Secondly, at times it is necessary to challenge perceived myths about creativity-

focused pedagogy. More specifically, to emphasise that this is not about radical new

teaching strategies, or teachers not intervening at all in their students’ art-making

processes (for fear of inhibiting creativity), but the readiness of teachers to be well

informed, to observe, and to assist students in expanding their ideas in purposeful

ways (Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) 2003). In fact, Ofsted’s research

found that teachers who seriously consider creativity simultaneously motivate and

inspire high standards of work.

Thirdly, teachers in all levels of education should assist students in understanding

that any reticence about their creative attributes can be ameliorated through their

own active involvement in generating ideas, sustained practice, stepping beyond

their comfort zone, and critical evaluation of their progress (Schmier 1995).
Published by the Catholic Education Office Melbourne in Learning Matters, volume 15, number 1, 2010, pp. 35–37
According to Biggs (1999) this is vital, as creativity is positioned in the higher-order

thinking category. Hence, especially with respect to student teachers, it is important

to underline epistemologically the influence of context in building the capacity for

creative activity, critical reflection and making authentic connections between their own

artistic processes and the implementation of creative teaching that extends beyond

arts-based courses (Culpan 2008b). It is also important to explicitly promote several

interrelated concepts relative to cultivating an environment that serves as a creative

catalyst:

1. The facilitation of students’ open inquiry processes is fundamental to progressive

curriculum (Cope & Kalantzis 1997), as these promote individuality in creative

expression, risk-taking (stepping beyond one’s comfort zone) and important inter-

and intra-personal skills (Gardner 1993).

2. Creative teaching practices energise students in making shifts in their thinking,

internalise learning and change their sense of self (Jeffrey 2006). This entails

incorporating new or different combinations of elements, fostering different kinds of

thinking skills, and innovation (Cropley 1990, 2006; Sternberg 1997; Joubert 2001).

The notion of innovation can be promoted by setting progressively more complex

challenges – without clear-cut solutions – as an important part of building students’

sense of creativity and individual or group ownership over their work (Ofsted

2003). In this light, creativity is not necessarily a solitary activity imbued in the

myth of the artist shut away in the garret (Sternberg & Lubart 1995); the social

aspect of creativity, developed at the group level, is also important (Cropley 2006).

In turn, the concept of group ownership entails facilitating collaborative learning

environments where students can draw on their own skills and experiences to

contribute to each other’s learning.

Published by the Catholic Education Office Melbourne in Learning Matters, volume 15, number 1, 2010, pp. 35–37
3. As previously implied, teaching for creativity necessitates recognising that students’

access to creative facility is subject to personal context (Gardner 2005). In

particular, students are more likely to extend their comfort zone when they sense

that their ideas can be valued and extended by peers and teachers alike (Eisner

2002). For Fromm, Maslow, May and Rogers (cited in LaChapelle 1983) and the

CGF (1989), creative development in an educational setting requires placing a

premium on students’ ideas in producing new work or forming new interpretations,

and supporting varied approaches to applying knowledge and skills.

Finally, all education disciplines need to strive more than ever to honor values evoked

by Gardner’s recent work (2007). This synthesises his earlier perspectives on Multiple

Intelligences to create a ‘pentad of minds’ encompassing the ‘disciplined mind; the

synthesising mind; the creative mind; the respectful mind and the ethical mind’ (p.

163). Gardner’s call for citizens of the future to nurture these minds in order to thrive in

an ever-changing global environment adds impetus to all previous calls for fostering

creativity through all areas of education.

References

Biggs, J 1999, Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does,

Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press,

Buckingham.

Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation (CGK) 1989, The Arts in Schools: Principles,

Practice and Provision, Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, London.

Cope, B & Kalantzis, M 1997, Productive Diversity, Pluto Press, Sydney.

Corner, F 2005, Identifying the core in the subject of fine art, International Journal of

Art & Design Education, Oxford, 24 (3), 334–342.

Craft, A 2003, ‘The limits of creativity in education: Dilemmas for the educator’, British

Journal of Educational Studies, 51 (2), 113–127.

Published by the Catholic Education Office Melbourne in Learning Matters, volume 15, number 1, 2010, pp. 35–37
Cropley, AJ 2006, ‘Dimensions of creativity – Creativity: A social approach’, Roeper

Review, 12 (3), 125–130.

Cropley, AJ 1990, ‘Creativity and mental health in everyday life’, Creativity Research

Journal, 12, 197–204.

Culpan, A & Hoffert, B 2009, ‘Creativity across the knowledge continuum’, Journal of

Artistic and Creative Education, 3 (1), 3–27.

Culpan, A 2008a, ‘Multimodal learning in arts education: A collaborative approach’,

Journal of the Humanities, 6 (2), 45–53.

Culpan, A 2008b, ‘Scaffolding creativity in arts education’, Victorian Journal of Music

Education (ASME), 38–46.

Cultural Ministers Council & Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training

and Youth Affairs 2005, National Statement on Education and the Arts, MCEETYA,

Forrest, ACT.

Eisner, EW 2002, The Arts and the Creation of Mind, Yale University Press, London.

Eisner, EW 1998, The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of

Educational Practice, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

Gardner, H 2007, Five Minds for the Future, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,

MA.

Gardner, H 2005, ‘Multiple lenses on the mind’, Paper presented at the Expo Gestion

Conference, Bogota, Columbia.

Gardner, H 1993, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Basic Books,

New York.

Hoffert, B 2004, ‘Thinking for innovation’, Art is Essential Symposium: Papers,

National Gallery of Victoria (NGV) Schools: Online Education Resources, retrieved

16 April 2008, <www.ngv.vic.gov.au/education/resources_aie_01.html>.

Published by the Catholic Education Office Melbourne in Learning Matters, volume 15, number 1, 2010, pp. 35–37
Jeffrey, B 2006, ‘Creative teaching and learning: Towards a common discourse and

practice, Cambridge Journal of Education, 36 (3), 399–414.

Joubert, MM 2001, ‘The art of creative teaching: NACCCE and beyond’, in A Craft, B

Jeffrey & M Liebling (Eds), Creativity in Education, Continuum, London, 17–34.

LaChapelle, JR 1983, ‘Creativity research: Its sociological and educational limitations’,

Studies in Art Education, 24 (2), 131–139.

Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) 2003, Expecting the Unexpected:

Developing Creativity in Primary and Secondary Schools, Retrieved 1 November

2007, <www.ofsted.gov.uk/.../Expecting%20the%20unexpected%20(PDF

%20format).pdf>.

Schmier, L 1995, Random Thoughts. The Humanity of Teaching, Magna

Publications, Madison, WI.

Sternberg, RJ 1997, Successful Intelligence, Plume, New York.

Sternberg, RJ & Lubart, TJ 1995, Defying the Crowd: Cultivating Creativity in a

Culture of Conformity, Free Press, New York.

Arda Culpan is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education, College of Design and

Social Context, at RMIT University in Melbourne.

Published by the Catholic Education Office Melbourne in Learning Matters, volume 15, number 1, 2010, pp. 35–37