Creative teaching of creativity teachers: Polish perspective

+ModelT

3

4

5

6

7

A8

9

e10

A11

a12

a13

r14

©15

K16

17

118

19

p20

i21

w22

s23

a24

g25

26

c27

S28

f29

R30

aa

1 12 d

RR

EC

TED

PR

OO

F

ARTICLE IN PRESSSC 24 1–6

Thinking Skills and Creativity xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

Keynote paper

Creative teaching of creativity teachers: Polish perspective�

Maciej Karwowski ∗, Jacek Gralewski, Izabela Lebuda, Ewa WisniewskaAcademy of Special Education, Institute of Applied Psychology, Creative Education Unit,

Szczesliwicka 40, 02-351 Warsaw, Poland

Received 20 July 2006; received in revised form 19 September 2006

bstract

The article presents basic information on the strand of psycho-pedagogy of creativity—a unique perspective on creativity teachers’ducation in Europe and the world. Psycho-pedagogy of creativity is a major in pedagogy studies, run in Poland, at the Warsawcademy of Special Education. Our aim is to educate specialists who are open, sensitive and well prepared content-wise in identifying

nd developing children’s and youth’s creative potential. We also aim at introducing the studies that function in a wider social context,nd presenting the situation of Poland after systemic transformation. It seems that information of this type may prove interesting toesearchers and practitioners that deal with education of creativity.

2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

eywords: Creative education; Creativity teachers; Teaching creativity in central-eastern Europe; Polish perspective of teaching creativity

. Introduction—on the role of creativity in education

The statement that creativity is a fashionable notion of contemporary discourses—both in a sense of economy andolitics or pedagogy, will most likely not raise doubts of researchers and attentive observers of social life. It appearsn the context of changes which are taking place in contemporary economy that creativity is looked at not only – asas the case before – as a feature of an individual, but as the main engine of the innovation of economy and source of

ocial changes in contemporary world. Contemporary psychology and pedagogy find dear the creationistic approach,ccording to which anyone can be creative (egalitarianism as opposed to elitism), though it is justifiable to talk aboutradating creativity and distinguishing the different levels of it.

Looking from a pedagogical point of view, it seems that special attention needs to be paid to the phenomenon that

UN

CO

Please cite this article in press as: Karwowski, M. et al., Creative teaching of creativity teachers: Polish perspective, ThinkingSkills and Creativity (2006), doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2006.10.004

an be denominated as fluent creativity (Necka, 2001), the not-yet-evident-creativity (Treffinger, Young, Shelby, &hepardson, 2002), or ‘small c’ creativity (Craft, 2003). Paying attention to this phenomenon shifts the interest stressrom product to process, and also accentuates the question of stimulating creativity in children, youth and adults.esearchers attempt to identify reasons for which today’s pedagogy does not assume such exposed place as it should,

� Preparation of this article was supported by grant BW 05/05-II from Academy of Special Education to Maciej Karwowski (principal investigator)nd Jacek Gralewski, Ewa Wisniewska and Izabela Lebuda. This support does not imply acceptance or endorsement of the position taken in therticle.∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +48 600456102.

E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Karwowski).

871-1871/$ – see front matter © 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.oi:10.1016/j.tsc.2006.10.004

+Model

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

NC

OR

RE

CTE

D P

RO

OF

ARTICLE IN PRESSTSC 24 1–6

2 M. Karwowski et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

and they also pay attention to dangers connected with developing creativity in a classroom. And so Plucker, Beghetto,and Dow (2004) identify a series of myths connected with creativity that make creativity not important enough toeducators and educational psychologists. These myths can be brought down to a number of key remarks. The firstmyth is a conviction, prevalent in statements of many a practitioner, that people are born creative or non-creative. Theimplication for such a point of view must lie in a doubt whether working on developing creativity makes sense at all.Such point of view, based on predestination, is both untrue and socially harmful. Untrue, because a body of researchdevoted to the efficiency of creativity training confirms the possibility for developing creativity potential (Scott, Leritz,& Mumford, 2004), and harmful, because it leads to the sin of forsaking attempts to develop creativity among thoseunder the educator’s care.

The second frequently appearing myth has to do with connecting children’s and youth’s creativity with negativebehaviours and features (see e.g. Karwowski, 2006). Connecting negative personality traces as well as behavioursthat are characteristic to outstanding creativity levels with children’s and youth’s creativity, leads to initiating negativeattitude towards creativity as a pedagogical issue.

Another doubt voiced by Plucker et al. (2004) lies in a conviction that according to some researchers, creativity isa lowly scientific, soft construct—the conviction that appeared under the influence of popular studies that wash outthe meaning of what creativity really is. The result is unauthorized connection with a series of characteristics that arenot always connected to creativity. There is no need, we suppose, to add that such state of affairs is not supportive ofachieving a scientific consensus and more effective development of creativity.

Other doubts that are worthy of notice are voiced by Craft (2003) who highlights the role of many problems connectedwith the functioning of the notion of creativity in education. Some of them are convergent with questions raised byPlucker et al. (2004)—this is so at least in case of terminological limitations. Lack of a well-defined meaning of the word“creativity” makes it in fact not clear all the way what is being talked about, what is there to be developed—imagination,divergent thinking, non-conformism, etc. These concepts, however close to creativity, are not synonymic to it, and sothere is a must to aim at increasing precision, as lack of it renders it impossible to translate theoretical assumptionsonto methodological directives.

2. The role of innovation in the context of systemic changes in central and eastern Europe

In contemporary times, creativity – more often that before – becomes an object of interest of researchers of allsorts of different provenances because of the perceived influence of creative abilities on economic changes that aretaking place in contemporary world. We can see this point of view in the work of Sawyer (2006) who highlightsthe role creative thinking plays in economic innovation, or the currently especially popular theory of creative class,formulated and intensively developed by Florida (2002). Making it slightly more simple, it is possible to state thatthe key idea for systemic conditions that are conducive to creativity and innovation may be brought down, followingFlorida, to three Ts—Talent, Technology and Tolerance. In the opinion of the American researcher, the economies thatare developing fastest are ones that are characterized by the coexistence of a significant percentage of well-educatedpeople and those working in creative professions (such as artists, scientists, consultants and people who actively processknowledge), existence of professions that are connected with modern technologies (computer science, telecommuni-cations) rather than agriculture in the structure of the economy, and the society that is characterized by a significantlevel of openness, tolerance expressed by, say, acceptance of gay people, acknowledgment of individual thinking andthe like.

How does a creative potential of societies where systemic changes have taken place reasonably recently – such asin the case of Poland still dozen or so years ago (1989) – look? It is an important question, as it marks out the specific,impossible to omit, social context of the development of creativity. Though it is a sociological or economic problem,it seems to be of special significance to pedagogy.

In Poland (a country of 38 million inhabitants that has since recently been member of the European union), thoughthe indicator of schooling is very high (half of those, aged 19–25 are studying), one might voice doubts as to the qualityof gained education (the level of functional illiteracy is still one of the highest in Europe). Gross domestic product is

Please cite this article in press as: Karwowski, M. et al., Creative teaching of creativity teachers: Polish perspective, ThinkingSkills and Creativity (2006), doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2006.10.004

one of the lowest in the Europe; though the economy is developing dynamically, only approximately 0.7% GDP isdevoted to R&D, whereas an EU average is at approximately 2%, and USA and Japan average is at approximately 3%.About 20% of the employed work in agriculture (though this proportion is systematically dropping, e.g. it was 27% in1992), and so Poland is still dominated by a very traditional structure of economy, considering that on average, 70%

+ModelT

o81

s82

383

84

t85

s86

c87

A88

c89

90

i91

a92

s93

m94

p95

p96

497

98

(99

t100

w101

102

e103

o104

H105

t106

s107

m108

m109

o110

o111

o112

t113

5114

115

m116

t117

o118

i119

i120

121

p122

p123

e124

125

C126

NC

OR

RE

CTE

D P

RO

OF

ARTICLE IN PRESSSC 24 1–6

M. Karwowski et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 3

f the employed in the EU work in services, and only less then 10% in agriculture, and Poland is characterized by onlylightly more than 50% working in services and as much as 20% in agriculture.

. Education for creativity in Poland

Numerous theoretical approaches that oscillate around the problem of creative education exist in Poland, especiallyhose that concentrate on shaping creative abilities (understood in the context of developing creative skills and problem-olving abilities), shaping creative attitudes and education for creativity. Those that deserve distinguishing are: theoncept of psycho-pedagogy of creativity, the concept of Abarietic Education and the concept of Shaping Intuitivebilities of Dobrołowicz (1995), the psycho-transgression concept of Kozielecki (1987), the concept of the lesson of

reativity of Szmidt (2003), as well as the concept of Necka Creativity Training (1998).It is worth to pay attention to the fact that creative education in Poland is not of systemic character as of today, and

s realized solely in form of extracurricular classes. The numerous activities within the frame of creative educationre generally taken up by the enthusiasts of creativity. Majority of classes that aim at simulating creative abilities orhaping attitudes and developing creative activity abilities, are conducted by non-public educational institutions. Oneay risk a statement that the Polish creative education is on the stage of early development that is mainly based on

reparing appropriately educated pedagogical personnel. The next step to take should be about creating educationalrograms and including classes of creativity in the canon of obligatory classes of both public and non-public schools.

. Psycho-pedagogy of creativity

In 1997, on the initiative of Professor Witold Dobrołowicz, the Maria Grzegorzewska Special Pedagogy Collegecurrently Academy of Special Education) established a major, entitled psycho-pedagogy of creativity. Its main aim iso teach, as part of continual 5-year undergraduate and graduate course of studies, teachers of creativity, prepared toork with children, youths and adults in different educational institutions.Graduates are at the same time prepared to organize and co-organize different innovative forms of education in their

nvironment, as well as to work in institutions that take up such kind of activity. He or she possesses abilities to diagnose,r aptly identify pupils or students characterized by different gifts (especially those potential ones, not yet discovered).e or she is prepared to develop skills, abilities and creative attitudes. Information of teaching methodology, gained

hroughout the course of studies, renders it possible for him or her to conduct training and instructional sessions inchools and other educational institutions. He or she is equipped with abilities to create their own, copyright programs,ethods, teaching aids and launching innovations. He or she knows how to effectively promote modern teachingethods among teachers and educators (e.g. by means of heading training councils in schools, counselling services

r teacher education services). The graduate is ready to identify and creatively solve pedagogical problems. Abilitiesf psycho-social type stimulated during the course of studies (such as communicational, multi-level cooperation,rganizational and task-group running, or local society activation) as well as creative abilities, enable the graduates toake up different professional roles.

. The program of studies

The studies at the Academy for Special Education last for 5 years, whereby the first year is common for allajors in pedagogy. Once in the strand for psycho-pedagogy of creativity, the further 4 years are about education

hat is solely connected with creativity. Clear majority of MA theses are empirical works the subject-matter of whichscillates around such issues as: methods of stimulating creative abilities and efficiency of these, perception of creativendividuals, creative imagination, personality determinants for creativity, creative atmosphere, creative leadership,ntuition, the different types of intelligence and creativity or the feeling of success.

It is possible to separate three leading areas around which the content of classes concentrates. These are psychology,edagogy and training session classes. Classes on psychology that are run as part of the major, form the basis for

Please cite this article in press as: Karwowski, M. et al., Creative teaching of creativity teachers: Polish perspective, ThinkingSkills and Creativity (2006), doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2006.10.004

edagogical deliberations, and are directed mainly at highlighting the essence of chosen phenomena and processes inducation. Some of the main subjects are more detailed discussed below.

The subject-matter to be studied is being developed during the key course which is entitled the “Psychology ofreativity.” During the course, students get to know creativity from the perspective of psychoanalysis, humanist,

+Model

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

NC

OR

RE

CTE

D P

RO

OF

ARTICLE IN PRESSTSC 24 1–6

4 M. Karwowski et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

associational, cognitive psychology, systemic concepts and the like. They get to know the characteristics of creativeprocess, its cognitive components, the role of motivation and emotions. Creativity is portrayed in the context of aparadigm that embraces four categories: process, product, person and place (the press, the environment). An importantpart of the program is composed of the social psychology of creativity and applied psychology of creativity. Theassumptions of the major are based on the conviction about the major role that is played by the different types ofintelligence in appropriate development and self-fulfilment. Hence, the program was enriched by courses that dealwith emotional and intuitive intelligence. During both courses, students get to know the basic theories that regard thenature of certain type of intelligence, psychometric issues connected with measuring it, as well as methods of howto shape and develop it. From the point of view of future pedagogical practice, the course in “Measuring CreativeAbilities and Attitudes” that aim at identifying the creative potential is of high significance. This enables one to get toknow the possibilities to measure, starting from tools based on the tradition of Guilford and Torrance tests, all the wayto the contemporary ones that regard intuitive intelligence, creative atmosphere or application of qualitative methods,such as interview, observation, product assessment, or the portfolio method.

A wider look at creativity is enabled by the courses in the “Sociology of Creativity” as well as the “Philosophy ofCreativity.” During the former, students will get to know the basic social factors that influence creativity. They findout about such issues as the sociological stimulators and inhibitors of the creative activity of humans, analyze thesocial perception of creators and creative people, ponder on the questions of culture development, accounting for thepsycho-sociological problems of transgression and creativity, as well as get to know the methodological problems ofthe sociology of creativity. The latter of the courses, embraces notions and types of creativity from the philosophicalperspective, according to Popper, Kuhn and others.

The listed courses form a basis of teaching the future creativity teachers, yet the leading one is still the “Pedagogyof Creativity.” During the course, students get to know such issues as the pedagogy of creativity in Poland and theworld, gain information about schools and educational institutions specializing in creative education, learn about thedirections of research in this field as well as the main theoretical trends. They analyze the evolution of the pedagogicalunderstanding of creativity, learn the tradition of Polish social pedagogy and the pedagogy of culture, as well as thecontemporary pedagogical and psycho-pedagogical theories. The course that is complementary to the course of the“Pedagogy of Creativity” is “Alternative Pedagogy.” As part of classes, alternative schools as well as the most recentreports on pedagogical innovations are presented. Moreover, international educational reports as well as alternativeteaching methods are being discussed.

An important and extensive part of the course of studies is devoted to obligatory training sessions and workshops. Thispractical part of the studies starts with effective learning techniques that embrace speed reading methods, mnemonics,mind-mapping, attention concentration improvement techniques or the use of visualization and relaxation in the processof learning. When in the second year of their studies, students already possess rich theoretical knowledge within theframework of psychology, and the pedagogy of creativity. They are also past training sessions connected with teambuilding and interpersonal elements, and so time comes for the training sessions that solely regard creativity. Thisstage takes 2 years. It opens up with the “Abarietic Training” the main aim of which is about participants’ developingabilities to spot and realize the barriers that stand on the way to full attainment of creative potential and then breakingthrough them.

The next stage is the “Creative Thinking Stimulation Training” that aims at making the mental abilities active—doingassociations, ‘aparting from,’ transforming, ‘metaphorising,’ deductive thinking, inductive thinking, stimulating flu-ency, flexibility and originality of thinking, creative imagination training. During classes, all sorts of different formsof activities are being used. These are technical, literary, fine arts, musical or dramatic exercises and the like. Abilitiesand knowledge, gained throughout the course of this ability training find application in the next stage of creativeeducation that is called the “Training of Heuristics.” The subject-matter of the training encompasses an overviewof the most important methods and techniques of creative problem-solving. Students get to know the specificity ofthe problem-solving process in a practical way, along with its stages, rules that stimulate thinking, and rules of thefunctioning of inventive groups, as well as individual differences in applying the individual heuristic rules. What isalso developed are such abilities as: noticing and sensitivity to problems, generating ideas, and creative process effects

Please cite this article in press as: Karwowski, M. et al., Creative teaching of creativity teachers: Polish perspective, ThinkingSkills and Creativity (2006), doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2006.10.004

verification.The summary of training activities undertaken during the previous creativity training sessions and the final course

in the field is “Training Construction.” Classes form an opportunity for students to use their knowledge in psychologyand the pedagogy of creativity, methodical information that regards running creative thinking groups as well as their

+ModelT

o179

w180

a181

t182

o183

184

l185

v186

t187

s188

t189

f190

191

p192

t193

u194

a195

c196

6197

198

t199

u200

p201

l202

o203

e204

T205

o206

a207

c208

o209

i210

s211

U212

213

R214

C215

D216

F217

K218

K219

L220

221

N222

N223

O224

P225

226

NC

OR

RE

CTE

D P

RO

OF

ARTICLE IN PRESSSC 24 1–6

M. Karwowski et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity xxx (2006) xxx–xxx 5

wn experiences as participants. Students design a few-day creativity training sessions and run some fragment of theseith a group, while having the instructor supervise it. The aim of the course is to stimulate, develop and perfect the

bilities to construct the students’ own creative thinking techniques, to analyze the needs of target groups and designraining session cycles. Another important element is experiencing the role of the coach as well as the merit assessmentf the prepared and conducted training sessions.

The creativity training sessions cycle, introduced to the course of studies, was based on the model of groupearning be means of experiencing, developed by Kolb (1985), leading from the stage of particular experience,ia reflexive observation, conceptualization, to active experimenting. Students go through their education from par-icipating in exercises of higher-and-higher level of advancement, to designing and conducting their own trainingessions. According to Larey and Paulus (1999), such form of group interaction ensures provision of many variousypes of information, motivates for creative activity, delivers behaviour patterns, as well as enables for receivingeedback.

Multi-year, intensive in form and versatile in direction training sessions students of the pedagogy of creativityarticipate in, are a long and intensive developmental process. Going through the following stages of working onhemselves, participants gradually learn to deal with different problems, get prepared for acting more efficiently andndertaking new challenges. These young people – the future teachers of creativity – may in future use the experiencend abilities gained during the training sessions discussed hitherto, thus preparing their pupils and/or students forreative living, and, as a consequence, for professional and private successes.

. Discussion

The aim for this article was to present the Polish perspective on teaching creativity teachers. The exceptionality ofhe psycho-pedagogy of creativity is primarily based on the fact that it is not a single course, conducted on one of theniversities, but a well thought-out, 5-year program that educates specialists in identifying and developing creativeotential. It is a valuable and desired activity in the Polish society that is open to changes and needs these very much—ateast because of the anachronistic structure of the economy. The philosophy of teaching creativity teachers as well asf the program shortly presented above lies in the assumption of providing education to people who will be able tofficiently stimulate creative abilities of children and youth, thanks to their openness, sensitivity, and gained abilities.here is no need, we presume, to add that it is of importance for children themselves, local societies and the wholef the society. Obvious is also the fact that even the most creative person who conducts creativity training sessions orteacher who excellently awakes creativity among his or her pupils and/or students, is not able to make far-reaching

hanges without systemic ones—those of political character. Recognition of individual thinking present on the levelf social declarations should translate into political and legal facilitations for the appearance and introduction of newdeas—for it is only then that the grass roots movement of teaching for creativity will have a chance to translate intoocial change.

ncited reference

Osborn (1957).

eferences

raft, A. (2003). The limits to creativity in education: Dilemmas for the educator. British Journal of Educational Studies, 51(2), 113–127.obrołowicz, W. (1995). Psychodydaktyka kreatywnosci [Psycho-education of creativity]. Warszawa: WSPS.lorida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class and how it’s transforming work, life community and everyday life. New York: BasicBooks.arwowski, M. (2006). Teacher as a source of information about students creativity—are the nomination valid? (submitted for publication).ozielecki, J. (1987). Koncepcja transgresyjna człowieka [A transgressive model of man]. Warszawa: PWN.arey, T. S., & Paulus, P. B. (1999). Group preference and convergent tendencies in small groups: A content analysis of group brainstorming

performance. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 175–184.

U

Please cite this article in press as: Karwowski, M. et al., Creative teaching of creativity teachers: Polish perspective, ThinkingSkills and Creativity (2006), doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2006.10.004

ecka, E. (1998). Trening tworczosci [Creativity training]. Krakow: Impuls.ecka, E. (2001). Psychologia tworczosci [Psychology of creativity]. Gdansk: GWP.sborn, A. (1957). Applied imagination: Principles and mid procedures of creative problem solving. New York: Scribner’s.lucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologist? Potentials, pitfalls, and future

directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96.

+Model

227

228

229

230

231

232

ARTICLE IN PRESSTSC 24 1–6

6 M. Karwowski et al. / Thinking Skills and Creativity xxx (2006) xxx–xxx

Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1, 41–48.

UN

CO

RR

EC

TED

PR

OO

F

Please cite this article in press as: Karwowski, M. et al., Creative teaching of creativity teachers: Polish perspective, ThinkingSkills and Creativity (2006), doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2006.10.004

Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4),361–388.

Szmidt, K. J. (Ed.) (2003). Dydaktyka tworczosci [Dydactics of creativity]. Krakow: Impuls.Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Selby, E. C., & Shepardson, C. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators. Storrs, CT: The National Research

Center of The Gifted and Talented.