Article 2014

Passion: Engine of creative teaching in an English university?

Thinking Skills and Creativity
Journal · Vol. 13 · pp. 91-105
Abstract

Literature suggests that whilst creativity is frequently seen as ubiquitous and taken for granted (Dawson, Tan, & McWilliam, 2011; Livingston, 2010) there is evidence that creative approaches in higher education can be seen as unnecessary work (Chao, 2009; Clouder et al., 2008; Gibson, 2010; McWilliam et al., 2008), and creative teaching is not always recognised or valued (Clouder et al., 2008; Dawson et al., 2011; Gibson, 2010). Forming part of a cross-cultural study of creative teaching (although reporting on only one part of it), the research explored student and lecturer perspectives in four universities in England, Malaysia and Thailand, using mixed methods within an interpretive frame. This paper reports on findings from the English University site. Key elements of creative teaching in this site were having a passion for the subject and for using sensitised pedagogical strategies, driven by an awareness of student perspective and relationship. Crucial goals were fostering independent thinking; striving for equality through conversation and collaboration; and orchestrating for knowledge-building. The lecturers' passion for the subject was a powerful engine for creative teaching across all academic disciplines spanning the arts, the humanities, and STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) subjects. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords

Author Keywords

Higher education creative teaching Passion for subject

Index Keywords

Author Affiliations
University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom
Funding & Acknowledgements
Universiti Malaya, UM
This international research study, which was led overall by Principal Investigator Dr Ananda Kumar Palanappian (University of Malaya) was funded by the University of Malaya to whom we express our gratitude. Thanks are due to Dr. Palaniappan, for his initial input on the methodology section and for comments on later drafts of this article. We are grateful also to Dr Chanisa Apichatabutra with whom we have discussed and developed, along with Dr Palaniappan, the project-wide approaches to analysis of data and its interpretation. Finally our thanks are due to the wider team of colleagues in Malaysia and Thailand: Dr. Pradip Kumar Mishra, Dr. Adelina Asmawi and Dr. Lau Poh Li, whose perspectives informed these discussions.
References 10 References
1 Amabile, Teresa M., How to kill creativity., Harvard business review, 76, 5, pp. 76-186, (1998)
2 Amabile, Teresa M., Affect and creativity at work, Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 3, pp. 367-403, (2005)
3 Belluigi, Dina Zoe, Exploring the discourses around 'creativity' and 'critical thinking' in a South African creative arts curriculum, Studies in Higher Education, 34, 6, pp. 699-717, (2009)
4 Creative Mind Myths and Mechanisms, (2004)
5 Work Based Learning A New Higher Education, (2001)
6 Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research, (2011)
7 English Teaching and Learning, (2009)
8 Chappell, Kerry Anne, Creative learning conversations: Producing living dialogic spaces, Educational Research, 53, 3, pp. 363-385, (2011)
9 Close Encounters Dance Partners for Creativity, (2011)
10 Clouder, Lynn, Embedding CETLs in a performance-oriented culture in higher education: Reflections on finding creative space, British Educational Research Journal, 34, 5, pp. 635-650, (2008)
Quick Actions
Full Text via DOI
Citation Metrics
28
Times Cited (Scopus)

References 10
Document Identifiers