References

Barrow, L.H. (2010) Encouraging Creativity with Scientific Inquiry . Creative Education.

Flanagan, M. Hickey, I. Robson, D. (2007) The Leonardo Effect: Art and Science working together. START Magazine. NSEAD

Hepburn, H. (2008) ‘The Leonardo Effect takes flight’.  TES Magazine. Retrieved on 3/5/14 from: http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=2571081

Snow, C.P. (1959) The Two Cultures. The Rede Lecture. Cambridge University Press.

Stange, K. (2010) The Solemn Frivolity of Art And Charming Frigidity of Science. International Journal of Arts and Sciences.

WJEC. Foundation Phase (2012) retrieved on 2/5/14 from: http://wales.gov.uk/topics/educationandskills/earlyyearshome/foundation_phase/?lang=en

Conclusion: My Views:' Just throwing it out there'

There are a multitude of different perspectives of creativity. The criticism surrounding its implementation within education, first and foremost, stems from the fact it remains misunderstood. There are so many different notions on what creativity actually is and what it involves that nobody knows for sure. I do not believe a universal definition is feasible as it is such a vast concept. That being said, when solely applied to the topic of education, I believe it is crucial.

In an educative context, we can begin to understand that creativity does not simply apply to the Arts but spans across all subjects under the National Curriculum and beyond. Creativity is how we learn; it is how we develop as individuals and as a society. If it was not in existence, we would cease to exist. Those who are renowned for their famous inventions and ground-breaking theories are all part of the creative evolutionary (and revolutionary) process of humankind. We are not robots programmed to do specific tasks, we each have our own minds, our own unique preferences and we each think for ourselves and learn in different ways. Our imagination is creativity. We are creativity.

Promoting creative thinking is to promote individual identity, which in turn promotes our society.

The Leonardo Effect

Following on from the previous post, it seems that some have taking the links between Science and the Arts into account. Art and Science education lecturers in Belfast focused on the work of Leonardo Da Vinci and his endless curiosity surrounding art and science. (Hepburn, H. 2008) After five years of extensive research an interdisciplinary teaching methodology was devised based on Da Vinci’s work, sweeping through the UK since the completion of its pilot schemes across the four countries. The system involves a “synchronised integration” of the two subjects as an alternative method to the current teaching techniques of the national curriculum. (Leonardo Effect, 2011)

The Leonardo Effect claims to promote children’s confidence, develop skills transferable into maturity and enable them to reach their full educational potential. Its aim is to renew children’s interest in their education, refreshing a love of learning. It trains teachers to approach their work at a different angle to inspire the children and develop self-motivated learning, to become more confident in contributing and collaborating with their school work.

To achieve these goals, a four stage system was devised. The first stage is discovery-based learning which takes advantage of a child’s natural curiosity, using their own experiences relating to the subject in hand, prompting them to research using a variety of different media. Next, teachers should allow the children the freedom to develop their work, discovering for themselves links in their research, finding out where each lead takes them. This is also to be completed using various resources, as children differ in their learning capabilities and may not flourish if they are to utilise only a select few chosen by their teacher. The third stage requires the children to apply the knowledge they have gained to the work they are undertaking, which the Leonardo Effect claims is a higher level of learning which exceeds current curricular requirements. The final stage involves personal reflection and communication between themselves and their peers and teacher. This can manifest in a number of ways, for example, the children can present what they have learnt to one another, they can discuss it or they can continue their research having discovered further information they wish to research.

Currently in the UK, over 100 schools are using the Leonardo Effect and it can be applied to both primary and secondary education. From several articles and references on the website, it is clear to see that its implementation in its pilot schemes have proved to be very successful. (Flanagan, M. Hickey, I. Robson, D. 2007)

With over two decades worth of criticisms of the national curriculum, it is most definitely time its implementation was refreshed. Many children feel forced to attend school, it is time we worked to abolish the majority who feel this way and get children excited at the prospect of going to school. The Leonardo Effect provides them with a sense of control and empowerment over their own education. Surely, it should not be for the teacher to decide how you learn a subject, leaving children to endure the monotony of being told what to do and how to do it, day in and day out, with very little care given to how they feel about a subject or to their questions that arise in their curious minds.

The current structure does not allow teachers the time to respond to the questions, let alone opinions, asked by their pupils, unless it is completely relevant to the subject being taught. The Leonardo Effect is a very effective way of utilising the short time teachers and pupils have to cover the vast amount of subjects within the national curriculum.

Teaching and learning should be a collaborative journey of discovery, not a process of manufacturing.

(See links on the right to find out more about the Leonardo Effect)

Display of children's work in Ysgol Bryn Gwalia, Flintshire, who use the Leonardo Effect

Science Vs Arts

As I have briefly mentioned in my first post, creativity is not a linear concept, it does not solely apply to those with a talent for Art or Music, etc. This post will discuss the links between creativity and science.

To begin, let’s think of our initial thoughts on the Arts and Science as separate entities, what our own schooling has led us to understand about these subjects. Science – an academic subject for those who are considered highly intelligent. The Arts – non academic, creative, for the gifted musicians and exceptional painters.

C.P Snow was both a writer and a scientist in the mid 20^th century. In 1959, he gave a speech called “The Two Cultures” regarding his experience and involvement with two very different groups of people. He believed that the intellectual life of the whole of Western society is continuously being split into two sides. On one side, you have the writers, the literary intellectuals, on the other, you have the scientists. Snow’s aim was to bring the two sides together, to help them understand their similarities, as their differences in opinion of each other were hindering the Western world. Snow admits that education alone cannot do this, however he acknowledges the importance of educations role in bridging the gap. (C. P Snow, 1959)

It seems his call, to reform education to accommodate both sides as equal, went unheeded.

An article written by Ken Stange in 2010, he begins by stating that the term ‘creative’ is now applicable to both artists and scientists alike, however, Snow’s concept of “The Two Cultures” is still in existence. There is still a divide and people on both sides simply refuse to believe that there is any link, questioning the notion that scientists can be dubbed as creative.

I would be wrong to suggest the two are inextricably linked, as Stange points out, they differ in methodology and evaluation of accomplishment, but they do share characteristics.

The article moves on to describe examples of seriousness in Art and playfulness in Science, contrary to the common misconception of Art as playful and pointless and science as serious and methodological.

It is not only Art that can be experimental and explorative; Science does not always have a specific goal in mind. After all, Penicillin was discovered by accident. Also, the cause and consequently, the treatment for diabetes were accidental, both examples occurred, not due to careful planning and hours if research, but by accident and experimentation, with no precise, clear-cut outcome in mind.

Stange concludes his article by explaining that the creative foundations of both art and science are an extension of childhood play. It is not until maturity that this ‘play’ becomes important, with the presence of peer and self evaluation. (K, Stange. 2010)