Lupton and Bruce (2010) acknowledge some of the various views of information literacy, including that it is sometimes considered a separate literacy and sometimes considered to be part of a ‘literacy continuum’ and often recognised as a natural outcome of the advances in information and communications technologies. They propose a model of information literacy described from behavioural, socio-cultural and critical perspectives.
These three windows are labelled generic, situated and transformative. Levels of information literacy progress from basic and procedural (the generic window), to viewing contextual, authentic, collaborative and participatory information literacy practices through socio-cultural filters (the situated window) and onto applying critical filters to reveal the subjective nature of literacy and empower students to challenge the status quo to the transformative window (the transformative window). After conducting research to explore the experienced relationship between information literacy and learning in music composition and law tax Lupton (2008) proposed a second transformative window to complement the critical transformative window — the expressive transformative window. Lupton found that the original GeST model didn’t adequately cater for creative learning like that experience by students learning music composition.
Sir Ken Robinson, professor at the University of Warwick (UK), agrees with the need to embed teaching towards creativity into the curriculum. In an interview posted on TED: Ideas worth Sharing, Robinson stated that “creativity isn’t a specific activity; it’s a quality of things we do”.
In the past, creativity has sometimes been as synomomous with a lack of academic rigour or discipline — a ‘letting go’ or a ‘free for all’ experience. But exercising creativity builds on rigour — improving quality by taking achievements to a new level beyond technical excellence. In addition, creativity has been traditionally associated with the fine arts. But in Robinson’s view, “You can be creative in anything — in math, science, engineering, philosophy — as much as you can in music or in painting or in dance.” He stresses that creativity is “not about creating some small space in schools where people can be creative” and “not just tacking on some art programs on a Friday afternoon”.
Creativity needs to be embedded in whatever we do in all curriculum areas. Robinson describes two forms of creativity — general creativity and creativity as a personal process. Speaking metaphorically, Robinson talks about the importance of helping students to understand the "grammar of creativity". He believes that educators can teach specific creative thinking skills or series of processes that help students think productively, generate ideas effectively. This is general creativity. Creativity as a personal process is about identifying personal strengths and capacities. Educators can help students find their particular, individual creative strengths — including for example, visual, verbal, physically, mathematically.
Robinson thinks this view of creativity has huge implications for schools. He believes we need to re-think the school curriculum, pedogogy and assessment. Educators “have to make the idea of creativity clear and operational”.
The key messages in Robinson’s report for the British government called All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education are that we need to overcome past dichotomies in national debates about educational priorities. The report advocates a new balance in education, and proposes that it shouldn't be necessary to choose between the arts or the sciences; the core curriculum or the broad curriculum; between academic standards or creativity; freedom or authority in teaching methods.
“Realising the potential of young people, and raising standards of achievement and motivation includes all of these elements. Creating the right synergy and achieving the right balance in education is an urgent and complex task, from national policy making to classroom teaching.”
The report indicates that new technologies are “providing unprecedented access to ideas, information, people and organisations throughout the world, as well as to new modes of creativity, personal expression, cultural exchange and understanding”.
The report stresses that there is creative potential in “all areas of human activity, including the arts, sciences, at work at play and in all other areas of daily life” and that all people have different creative abilities. It also values creativity as a serious achievement based on deep understanding and control of materials, techniques and ideas.
Developing creative capacity “involves a balance between teaching skills and understanding, and promoting the freedom to innovate, and take risks.”
In addition the report clearly links creativity with cultural understandings by stating that ”The engine of cultural change is the human capacity for creative thought and action.“ It proposes that creative and cultural education are general functions of education. And that through education, students should come to understand and respect different cultural values and traditions and the processes of cultural change and development. Schools need to broaden their definition of social culture to include “the impact of science and technology on ways of life and the increasing interaction between cultures”. Educators need to encourage young people “to engage positively with cultural change and diversity”, undestand the “dangers of cultural intolerance”. The report proposes that the dynamic relationship between creative and cultural education has practical implications for curriculum and classroom practice.
Many points made in Robinson’s view of creativity in education raised in the interview and report are compatible with the GeST windows model of information literacy that includes the generic, situational, transformative and expressive windows. Within the GeST model, both the transformative (expressive and critical) windows are inclusive of the situational (socio-cultural) and generic (procedural) windows. This implies that creativity and critical thinking rely upon students confidence and competence in information literacy practices and deep socio-cultural understandings.
References
Lupton, M. (2008). Information Literacy and Learning. Doctoral Thesis. University of Queensland. Retrieved 29 August 2011 from QUT ePrints http://eprints.qut.edu.au/16665/
Lupton, Mandy and Bruce, Christine. (2010). Chapter 1 : Windows on Information Literacy Worlds : Generic, Situated and Transformative Perspectives in Lloyd, Annemaree and Talja, Sanna, Practising information literacy : bringing theories of learning, practice and information literacy together, Wagga Wagga: Centre for Information Studies, pp.3-27.
National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education. (1999). All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education, Report to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Retrieved August 29, 2011 from www.cypni.org.uk/downloads/alloutfutures.pdf
Robinson, E. (2009).TED and Reddit asked Sir Ken Robinson anything — and he answered on TED Ideas Worth Sharing. Retrieved August 29, 2011 from http://blog.ted.com/2009/08/12/ted_and_reddit_1/
No comments:
Post a Comment