The paradox of creative uncertainty in learning and teaching

In an ever-changing and globalised world there is a need for higher education to adapt and evolve its models of learning and teaching. The old industrial model has lost traction, and new patterns of creative engagement are required. These new models potentially increase relevancy and better equip students for the future. Although creativity is recognised as an attribute that can contribute much to the development of these pedagogies, and creativity is valued by universities as a graduate capability, some educators understandably struggle to translate this vision into practice. This paper reports on selected survey findings from a mixed methods research project which aimed to shed light on how creativity can be designed for in higher education learning and teaching settings. A social constructivist epistemology underpinned the research and data was gathered using survey and case study methods. Descriptive statistical methods and informed grounded theory were employed for the analysis reported here. The findings confirm that creativity is valued for its contribution to the development of students’ academic work, employment opportunities and life in general; however, tensions arise between individual educator’s creative pedagogical goals and the provision of institutional support for implementation of those objectives. Designing for creativity becomes, paradoxically, a matter of navigating and limiting complexity and uncertainty, while simultaneously designing for those same states or qualities.

[1]  Paul Kleiman,et al.  Towards transformation: conceptions of creativity in higher education , 2008 .

[2]  Anna Jones Generic attributes as espoused theory: the importance of context , 2009 .

[3]  Robert Thornberg Informed Grounded Theory , 2012 .

[4]  Robert J. Sternberg,et al.  The Creativity Conundrum: A Propulsion Model of Kinds of Creative Contributions , 2001 .

[5]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2010 .

[6]  M. Fryer Some Key Issues in Creativity Research and Evaluation as Seen From a Psychological Perspective , 2012 .

[7]  Robert S. White John Keats: A Literary Life , 2010 .

[8]  Norman Jackson Imagining a different world , 2006 .

[9]  Michael A. Peters,et al.  Education in the creative economy : knowledge and learning in the age of innovation , 2010 .

[10]  K. Robinson Out of Our Minds: Learning to Be Creative , 2001 .

[11]  L. Wood,et al.  Developing creativity: aligning community, learning and teaching practices , 2008 .

[12]  Anabela Mesquita Technology for Creativity and Innovation: Tools, Techniques and Applications , 2011 .

[13]  Carol Grbich,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Introduction , 2007 .

[14]  M. Mumford,et al.  The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review , 2004 .

[15]  R. Barnett Learning for an unknown future , 2004 .

[16]  Paulo Freire,et al.  Teachers As Cultural Workers: Letters To Those Who Dare Teach , 2018 .

[17]  J. Dewey,et al.  How We Think , 2009 .

[18]  Shane Dawson,et al.  Cultivating innovation through social relationships: A qualitative study of outstanding Australian innovators in science & technology and the creative industries , 2011 .

[19]  Anna Craft Fostering creativity with wisdom , 2006 .

[20]  Gregory N. Hearn,et al.  Education for the creative economy : innovation, transdisciplinarity, and networks , 2010 .

[21]  K. Charmaz,et al.  Constructing Grounded Theory , 2014 .