Where’s the revolution?

Bringing creative thinking and personalization into all classrooms would be a true revolution in learning.

Every education system in the world is being reformed at the moment. And it’s not enough. Reform is no use anymore because that’s simply improving a broken model. What we need is not evolution but a revolution in education.

— Sir Ken Robinson (2010)

American education today wants what it can’t quite grasp — creativity in teaching and learning. Creativity isn’t really elusive — we can sense it when we experience it — but an infusion of creativity in schools requires fundamental changes in attitude and approach. Sir Ken Robinson believes transformation is essential to bring creative thinking into schools (2009). Change is hard. Who will take the first step to embrace ambiguity, the hallmark of creativity? Who will risk public scrutiny to take a stand for innovation? Who will go the extra mile to infuse daily instruction with personalized learning? As reform initiatives are added layer upon layer, teachers speak of a broken system, untenable expectations, low morale, and students who quit. Too often, learning remains a passive endeavor where teachers dispense knowledge for students to acquire, retain, and repeat back on tests. In a recent study, Kyung Hee Kim (2011) unveiled a disturbing trend: Over the past two decades, students’ IQs have increased while their capacity for creative thinking has decreased, especially among elementary students. Kim states, “To reverse decline in creative thinking, the United States should reclaim opportunities for its students and teachers to think flexibly, critically, and creatively. Standardization should be resisted” (p. 294). It’s time we give Robinson’s theories serious consideration.

Transformative practices

To transform education, Robinson (2009) recommends three major changes: Dispense with subject hierarchy, focus on curricular disciplines instead of subjects, and elevate personalization. Let’s examine the first idea, the ranking of subject priority. Reading and math have dominated most school schedules since NCLB went into effect, thus reducing time for every other subject (Ravitch, 2010). Academic achievement as measured by testing is not necessarily improved by narrowing the curriculum, as Diane Ravitch explains:

Test prep is not always the best preparation for taking tests. Children expand their vocabulary and improve their reading skills when they learn history, science, and literature, just as they may sharpen their mathematics skills while learning science and geography. And the arts may motivate students to love learning.  (p. 108)

Reducing, marginalizing, and eliminating programs that aren’t measured by standardized tests decreases opportunities for students to learn through individual strengths and interests while developing creative thinking skills. Curricular decisions clearly inform all stakeholders — especially students — about what is and is not deemed important by adults. In the most watched TED Talk of all time with over 23.5 million views (May, 2013), Robinson unabashedly states: “Creativity is now as important as literacy, and we should treat it with the same status” (2006).

Education does a grave disservice to students by enforcing artificial curricular boundaries.

Robinson’s second transformative concept considers sets of disciplines, rather than singular subjects, in order to broaden connections across the curriculum. Children do not compartmentalize their learning until schooling causes them to think this way. A child was overheard to comment that her favorite subject is math. Her teacher stated, “I thought art was your favorite subject.” The girl replied, “Art is not a subject. It is a ‘special.’ ” In fact, art is so special that it activates thinking through science, math, history, language, and technology! The same can be said for every other discipline studied in school. It is through cross-disciplinary connections that children deepen their understandings about the world. Education does a grave disservice to students by enforcing artificial curricular boundaries.

The thinking that everyone needs to acquire precisely the same knowledge set to succeed is fundamentally flawed. Rather than presuming that the adults know precisely what every child must master in order to succeed, students can demonstrate what they need to move forward. Teachers watch for and expand upon emergent curriculum, which originates in student questions, comments, and other observed behaviors in and outside of class. Students can heighten their learning experiences through inclination and alertness:

To educate for understanding, educators have to nurture two other elements of dispositions beyond skill: inclination — the drive, need, or passion that pushes people to use their skills — and alertness — the sensitivity, awareness, or recognition of connections among the bits of information that constantly stream past us. (Hetland, 2013, p. 67)

The third change, personalization, invests students in their learning. Effective practices that propel learners toward meaningful connections promote choice and personal relevance (Renzulli, Leppien, & Hays, 2000; Tomlinson et al., 2002). Personalization is not the same as differentiation. In differentiated instruction, the teacher designs learning activities on several different levels to adjust for readiness, interest, and learning style toward a common goal. This practice helps teachers accommodate diverse student needs and avoid teaching to the middle. Personalization, on the other hand, could be considered learner-differentiation, where students devise their own paths to skills and knowledge. When teachers facilitate for personalized learning, students are more likely to reach for potential that may be overlooked or obstructed by standardized curriculum, which leaves little time for divergence and discovery.

For personalization to be an effective pedagogical tool, teachers shift a measure of control to the learner and embrace their new role as mentor, facilitator, and sometimes even peer. This is a radical departure for most educators and falls into the experimental realm that McNulty calls “next practice” (2010). McNulty suggests that, in order for the field to grow, about 20% of teaching practice must be experimental. This kind of innovation, he contends, doesn’t come from the top down but originates with progressive teachers. Companies such as Google and 3M embrace the concept of “20% time” (Pink, 2009, p. 96) to spark innovation in the workplace. These progressive organizations believe in their employees’ ability to self-direct and self-motivate. Without the freedom to do just that, advances in products and procedures are compromised.

What if we could extend this concept to education? Envision setting aside 20% of class time for self-directed learning, when students can practice and apply cross-disciplinary skills through problem finding, inquiry, divergent thinking, collaboration, reflection, and evaluation of their creative pursuits. Could growth in creative and critical thinking skills justify a 20% reduction in the direct teaching of curricular content?

In Robinson’s revolution, “It’s not about curriculum. It’s not about assessment. It’s about pedagogy” (2003, p. 11). Experimentation and risk taking in teaching are qualities school leaders can cultivate in their faculty. A trusting school climate encourages innovative practices by teachers and, ultimately, students. The creative nature of the art classroom makes this an ideal platform for initiating and launching Robinson’s revolutionary changes.

A model for creativity

Teaching for Artistic Behavior (TAB) is a grassroots movement originating nearly four decades ago by art teachers frustrated by convergent and prescriptive approaches in “the school art style” (Efland, 1976, p. 37) of mainstream art education. In traditional art programs, the teacher assigns projects designed to teach various concepts and skills. Often these projects result in similar, predetermined products. In contrast, TAB educators set up their classrooms like artists’ studios, with materials, equipment, and resources embedded into multiple studio centers, each with a particular media focus such as painting or ceramics. In this authentic setting, learning is personalized because students choose media and content based on their interests. This model of choice-based pedagogy provides a flexible construct to meet the varied needs of schools, teachers, and learners.

Learning in choice-based studio centers mirrors the authentic work conducted by practicing artists. The idea is that students learn best when they’re able to work in the same manner as professionals in the field (Renzulli, Leppien, & Hays, 2000). Authentic classroom studios become safe spaces for exploration, innovation, collaboration, and personalization by all students, with strong focus on process, not product. By examining the practices of adult artists, relevant content and salient skills come into focus and are incorporated into daily instruction.

In choice-based art programs, whole-group instruction typically starts the class and is deliberately kept brief to maximize students’ studio time (Douglas & Jaquith, 2009). Teaching for creativity means examining and presenting only the essence of what is significant in order to pique curiosities and cultivate a climate of inquiry. This is no easy task for teachers new to learner-directed pedagogy and eager to transfer their wealth of knowledge (Hathaway, 2013). Active teaching doesn’t stop during choice-studio time but shifts to small-group lessons, individual mentoring, observation and assessment, and modeling artistic behavior. Autonomy and personalized learning drive students’ decision-making, as described by this 6th-grade boy:

“We learn a new skill every day, but, if we’re in the middle of something, we can choose to not use the skill right away. We can use it at some other point.”

Students have opportunities to develop a broad range of executive functioning skills when they assume responsibility for their work. Teachers observe where in the creative process individual students falter and provide supports. A 3rd-grade girl explains her process for preparation:

My planning skills are better because I have a journal to write down a whole description of what I want to do. I use it at home and when I have time in school because I know what materials will be available in art class. I have my plans written out so they don’t just come out of my mind into nowhere — I know just what I am going to do.

Self-pacing, a form of learner differentiation, is a skill rarely practiced in school. Some students in choice-based art classes work quickly and others prefer to spend significant time on a single artwork. A 5th-grade boy says, “One skill I’ve gotten with choice is patience, total patience, when something doesn’t fit right, and you have that image in your head that it needs to look like that image.” This student was able to revisit a single artwork off and on throughout an entire school year, making gradual changes as they came to him. He also completed other artworks during that time, with the same focus and energy.

One size never fits all in choice-based classrooms. Creative thinking through exploration of materials and concepts is fueled by intrinsic motivators, including curiosity, challenge, and passion (Amabile, 1996). Competition, often a deterrent of creativity, is nonexistent because everyone is engaged in uniquely appropriate, individual, or collaborative activities that sustain focus, often over long periods of time (Jaquith, 2011).

For students to work creatively, considerable structure needs to be in place. People unfamiliar with TAB programs may assume that the classroom is always on the edge of chaos. However, clear expectations and predictable routines are essential for students to feel comfortable with ambiguity in their work. Studio centers are designed with resources to support personalized learning and enliven creative thinking. Flexible time-on-task guidelines adjust to meet the varying degrees of student passion and commitment.

Envision setting aside 20% of class time for self-directed learning when students could practice cross-disciplinary skills through problem finding, inquiry, divergent thinking, collaboration, reflection, and evaluation of creative pursuits.

The Teaching for Artistic Behavior concept has expanded nationally through strong local and national advocacy efforts, regional professional learning communities, conference presentations, and extensive online visibility — all organized and managed by teachers. The movement is further propelled by a swell of enthusiasm from administrators and parents who observe that students, especially unconventional and at-risk learners, flourish in self-directed settings. For these students, choice-based pedagogy provides varied opportunities for specialization and mastery rarely found elsewhere in their school experiences (Hathaway, 2012).

Authentic learning environments

Authentic learning environments, including those found in choice-based art programs, foster creative thinking. Teachers balance foundational domain-specific knowledge with skills requisite for independent work. Through direct, small group, and individual instruction, students learn about artistic process, artists, and art history.  While students self-direct their work, they develop skills in inquiry, reflection, and evaluation. They practice ideation, make decisions, find relevance, and create meaning. As they build confidence in their abilities, students are able to take greater risks with their work, often collaborating with classmates in self-selected groupings. Collaborative work expands innovative thinking and empathy as students learn to compromise and resolve creative differences.

This authentic approach to education challenges traditional assumptions and expectations of whole-class art projects, subject matter, and teacher as dispenser of knowledge. The ideal teacher in this setting is well-rounded and nimble and can recognize and extend emergent curriculum as it develops. A teacher who is also an artist adds an additional measure of authenticity and empathy while embracing the role of artist-in-residence. The long-held idea of sequential art education is upended when students are encouraged to go deeper into areas of personal interest. Students remark that when they choose and direct their projects they work harder and challenge themselves more than when the teacher runs the show. One 4th grader said, “If you don’t like what you are doing, you might not try so hard. If you do like your work, you do your best and have fun, too!” A 7th grader adds, “It’s more likely for everyone to participate when people can choose their own thing rather than when the teacher is assigning something that is expected to be done.”

Art, like every discipline, is infinite. It is not enough for curriculum to rest neatly within the narrow confines of static content in the form of the elements and principals of design, Western art history, and disembodied skills and techniques — stagnant categories with closed ends. Innovative educators question the accepted tomes and look toward themes and emerging theory for dynamic curriculum that meets contemporary learners’ needs (Gude, 2000). From this, novelty and surprise result, which keep teachers fresh and involved while promoting the idea of teacher-as-learner. With curriculum originating from creative inquiry, no two consecutive school years will ever be the same.

Look to pedagogy

A decade has passed since Sir Ken Robinson first called for an overhaul in education in support of creativity (2003, p. 11). Current practice won’t meet the needs of globalization if reform continues to demand standardization and convergent behaviors (Zhao, 2009). The art studio is a natural place for revolutionary thinking to manifest. The creative approach teachers and learners take here can serve as an example of the way forward.

When there is more information than can possibly be taught with even more content exploding daily, progressive educators set a new agenda for teaching and learning and prioritize innovation. Look to pedagogy. The end product of education is the whole child who can, through creative thinking, expand knowledge and skills, make meaningful connections, and build relationships with the world. Now is the time for education to heed Robinson’s call to arms. Let the revolution begin!

References

Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Douglas, K.M. & Jaquith, D.B. (2009). Engaging learners through artmaking: Choice-based art education in the classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Efland, A. (1976). The school art style: A functional analysis. Studies in Art Education, 17 (2), 37-44.

Gude, O. (2000). Investigating the culture of curriculum. In E. Fehr, K. Fehr, & K. Keifer-Boyd (Eds.), Real-world readings in art education: Things your professor never told you (pp. 75-81). New York, NY: Falmer Press.

Hathaway, N.E. (2013). Smoke and mirrors: Art teacher as magician. Art Education, 66 (3), 9-15.

Hathaway, N.E. (2012). Outlaws, rebels, and rogues: Creative underachievers. In D.B. Jaquith & N.E. Hathaway (Eds.), The learner-directed classroom: Developing creative thinking skills through art (pp. 79-90). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hetland, L. (2013). Connecting creativity to understanding. Educational Leadership, 70 (5), 65-70.

Jaquith, D.B. (2011). When is creativity? Art Education, 64 (1), 14-19.

Kim, K.H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative thinking scores on the Torrance tests of creative thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23 (4), 285-295.

May, K.T. (2013). The 20 most popular TED Talks, as of this moment. TED Blog. http://blog.ted.com/2013/12/16/the-most-popular-20-ted-talks-2013/

McNulty, R.J. (2010, October 11). Keynote address to Washington West Supervisory Union, Harwood Union High School, Mooretown, VT.

Pink, D.H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Penguin.

Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Renzulli, J.S., Leppien, J.H., & Hays, T.S. (2000). The multiple menu model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Robinson, K. (2003, April 5). Keynote address, 2nd general session, National Art Education Association, Minneapolis, MN.

Robinson, K. (2006, February). How schools kill creativity. TED Talks. www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

Robinson, K. (2009). The element. New York, NY: Penguin.

Robinson, K. (2010, May). Bring on the learning revolution. TED Talks. www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_bring_on_the_revolution.html

Tomlinson, C.A., Kaplan, S.N., Renzulli, J.S., Purcell, J., Leppien, J., & Burns, D. (2002). The parallel curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Zhao, Y. (2009). Catching up or leading the way: American education in the age of globalization. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

CITATION: Hathaway, N.E. & Jaquith, D.B. (2014). Where’s the revolution? Phi Delta Kappan, 95 (6), 25-29.