Possibility Thinking Research

Possibility model process ResearchIntroductionMost people accept that proterozoic days pedagogics should cultivate to uprise childrens creativity but this raises a number of questions viz. what is creativity? How does it re tardily to mood, self decl arion and intelligence service? What ways pot creativity be taught and assessed and why is it valuable? Fostering childrens creativity involves much than the fanciful corner in the classroom it involves recognising their fictive engagement manifested by teenaged learners. According to Wilson (20.10.05) It is important that we advance creativity at an archean stage so that children atomic number 18 more prep atomic number 18d to lead an agile role in their own learning, aim better self-esteem and be more get outing to encounter chances.Possibility persuasion is at the heart of all creativity in young children. ( fraud 2002) Possibilities are generated by children in all areas of learning e.g. run away, euphony and scientific enquiry. It allows children to seek imaginative ways to produce a configuration of outcomes e.g. is a banana a fruit or is it a telephone? The possibilities to develop childrens productive thought are endless.Possibility thinking has been acknowledged in some educational literature on creativity but it has not been fully accepted by some educationalists ( dodge 2001). Jeffrey (2005) believes it is at the core to fictive learning and represents the macrocosm imaginative part of the current policy frame practise for creativity in England. Craft and Jeffrey (2004) believe that conjecture thinking involves enabling children to baring and refine problems as well as unclutter them.The aim of this research is to investigate whether surmisal thinking is at the heart of creativity in young children. I hypothesise thatPossibility thinking is at the heart of creativity in young children fanciful thinking and imagination allows young children to learn and developPossi bility thinking result solitary(prenominal) do couch if gravids give children time and postThe resources, milieu and available tasks affect the possibilities for creative thinkingLiterature revuecreative thinking has been described as a voyage of discovery (Craft 2008). When it comes to creativity in schools the second half of the 20th century can be first seen as a drought following the door of the National Curriculum in 1989 which rejected children centred curriculum practices. After 1999 there were many opportunities for creativity in terms of curriculum and learning payable to a shift in set in educational provision and the landscape of the classroom.During the end of the 20th and the start of the 21st century creativity has become evidentiary in education due to the advice of the National Advisory Committee on creative and culture education (NACCCE 1999) led by Sir Ken Robinson and research workers much(prenominal) as Woods and Craft (1997) and Harland et al (19 98). The key obtainings from their work was that creative learning involves children experiencing innovation in the classroom, control over activities, together with a sense of self-control in their learning. These features are characteristic of creative teaching (Jeffery and Woods 2003).The NACCCE saw creativity as imaginative activity, fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are original and of value (NACCCE 1999 pg 29). The approach together with linking creativity with culture saw a shift away from the find that creativity was only attainable by the gifted and a view of learning as empowerment in and beyond the classroom (Jeffrey and Craft 2001, Sefton-Green 2008).From 2002 the establishment of creative partnerships has promoted creative learning. The most recent curriculum polices of creativity within the early courses are the Early Years Foundation put (DFES 2007, DCSF 2008) which continues to emphasize the significance of creativity. It encourages student engagement and offers instructors a means of personalised learning (Hargreaves 2008). The message seems to be creativity is for everyone everywhereHowever there are problems as to how creativity is documented, assessed and how progression is supported (Rose 2008). Learning through and through the arts has the potential to stimulate open up ended activity that encourages discovery, exploration, experimentation and invention contributing to a childs development (Bernadette Duffy 2006). Music, terpsichore, and drama enable children to express their feelings. creativity and imagination in the light of Every Child matters, Sure Start and the Foundation Stage curriculum enables young children to learn and develop whilst expressing their feelings, eyeshots and responses.Anna Craft (2000) introduced and developed the notion of surmisal thinking as core to inadequate c creativity. Possibility thinking is means by which intelligence, self-creation, self-expression and know-how are bought together and expressed, It finds a way around a problem by posing questions and finding a problem through identifying a question or topic to be investigated. Fostering young childrens fortuity thinking involves despicable their thinking on from what does this do? to what can i do with this? It involves a move from the convergent to more divergent thinking.The paper Pedagogy and Possibility Thinking in the Early Years (Cremin, Burnard and Craft may 2006) sought to identify what characterises hypothesis thinking expanded on young childrens learning experiences and how teachers pedagogical practices cherishs this exact expression of creativity. Possibility thinking is central to creative learning and at the heart of all creative engagement. A 12 month believe carried out in a primary school by University investigators showed that teachers use the practice of brooking back whilst giving pupils time and space so as to foster possibility thinking. Studies undertaken by the team (Craft 200 1, Burnard et al 2006, Chappel 2006, Cremin et al 2006) suggest that the concept of Possibility thinking has creative engagement across all contexts. Possibility thinking implies attention to impact of ideas and nurtures trusteeship (Claxton 2008).The Curriculum steerage for the foundation stage emphasizes that creativity begins with curiosity and involves children in exploration and experimentation. They bugger off upon their imagination and originality. They arrive decisions, take risks and play with ideas. If they are to be truly creative, children need the freedom to develop and the support of adults (DFES 2000118). The work of researchers such(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) as Craft (2002), Csikszentmhalyi (1997), Fisher (1990) and Lipman (1988) has demonstrated the value of creativity in learning in the early years. In the foundation stage curriculum document creativity is presented as a subject and promoted in areas such as dance, music and stories. However they argue young childrens learning is not compartmentalised (DFES45). consequently subjects such as mathematics should put forward opportunities for creative thinking as teachers need to recognise the sizeableness of creativity throughout the whole curriculum so as to develop childrens creative thinking and spread out their learning whenever possible. (Worthington and Carruthers 2005)Given the pace of change in the 21st century education needs to be creative whilst enhancing the creativity of twain young children and the adults who work with them (Facer 2007).MethodologyThe researcher chose to use a crew of both secondary source materials alongside primary sources. The already published literature provided her with a unbendable base on which she was able to begin to base the investigation as well as providing the researcher with possible areas to explore and correlations to look out for when trickleing out her research.The primary sources enabled her to support the research that alre ady existed and helped to draw balanced conclusions when it came to answering the research question. This made her investigation current and valid but lead similarly aid the researchers future practice.Research in education is a disciplined attempt to address questions or solve problems through the collection and analysis of primary selective information for the purpose of description, explanation, generalisation and prediction (Anderson et al, 1998). there are many types of research but they all share the following basic characteristicsThey are all, or aim to be planned, cautious, systematic and reliable ways of finding out or deepening discretion (Blaxter et al, 2001, p.5).The researcher apply a commixture of primary methods uncrystallized interviewsUnstructured interviews are a soft method of research that provides informal, open ended flowing conversations. The advantage of this method, when discussing a subjective area such as creativity is that it provides in depth infor mation. Interviews provide valid and useful information which go away meliorate her research and by gathering opinions on possibility of thinking she will gain insight into the benefits and motivation it provides to young children. thespian noticesThe researcher will carry out overt comments in a variety of intendtings namely a primary school, a playgroup and a residential domicile. She will use overt observations whereby adults, and children are aware of her front end so as to avoid ethical issues. The researcher chose participant observations so that as a trusted adult she could join in with the creative activities and thus fully understand what was occurrent in each individual setting. The researcher was also keen to observe how an adult intervention and presence affected the childrens creative process.Ethics consideredthither are research concerns specific to children and young people set out in the British educational Research affiliation (BERA) ethical guidelines. Pri marily, these are focused upon the certified and valid consent of participants, and ways of assuring that this is attained (Lindsay, 2000). It was ensured that the BERA ethical guidelines were followed. This included, informing the primary school teacher, playgroup attractor and childminder what the research entailed and what would be expected of the children included in the sample. In line with ethical issues it was stressed that the data would remain anonymous.Empirical chapter 1 ObservationsIntroductionObservations are an figureivist approach. Interpretivism emphasizes that people have consciousness involving personal beliefs, values and interpretations and these order the way people out. They do not simply respond to forces outside of them. (K.Browne 2006)The researcher aims to interpret the values and feelings of both individuals and the group. The information will be in-depth and on a micro scale.AimsParticipant observations aim to develop an understanding from the view po int of the subjects of the research without allowing the researchers own values and prejudices to distort the observation.Children pose questions and find solutions to stimulate creative thinking.If young children are prepared to take risks they are more creative.MethodologyParticipant ObservationThe first task of any research is to gather information. The researcher will be doing this by carrying out observations so that explanations and correlations can be made. The information generated will provide her with opinions almost the extent to which possibility thinking is at the heart of creativity in young children.She will carry out tether observations the first at a primary school in Stafford where she will observe a year one numeracy lesson. The second at a playgroup in Wolverhampton and finally the third at the residential home of a childminder in Northampton. The observations will be overt and participant. The researcher will be honest with the children and adults so they unde rstand what she is doing. each(prenominal) observations will take rig in a non-threatening, safe atmosphere. At both the playgroup and childminders home the children will be either playing or gnarly in creative activities. At school the year one pupils will be involved in a numeracy lesson. The researcher will use an observation canvas tent to record information and write the observations up at a later(prenominal) date. She has chosen participant observation as the researcher joins the group being studied and can thus see things through their eyes.Observation 1ParticipantsBarnfield Primary school Stafford year one class25 pupils14 girls11 boysMaterialsNumeracy lesson plan on shapeProceduresFirstly she wrote to the head to ask permission to carry out the observation and whence visited the school on Monday 14th celestial latitude 2009 for a pre-visit to discuss the observation with the class teacher. She carried out the observation on Tuesday 12th January 2010. abridgmentThe d ata will be write up on the observation tag end and analysed at a later date.Observation 2ParticipantsPortobello community of interests Centre pre-school playgroup8 children5 boys3 girlsMaterialsCut out reindeers, cardConstruction toysObservation sheetProceduresFirstly she contacted the play leader by telephone to discuss the observations. She carried out the observations on the 7th December 2009 and the 18th January 2010.AnalysisThe data will be compose up on the observation sheet and analysed at a later date.Observation 3ParticpantsRegistered childminders home in Northampton. At present she looks later on boys aged seven and five and a girl aged trine.MaterialsToys e.g doll house, brio and magnetixMusical instruments e.g drums and shakersObservation sheetProceduresThe child minder is a family friend so the researcher made contact by phone. The researcher then visited on Monday 21st December 2009 to carry out the observation.AnalysisThe data will be written up on the observati on sheet and analysed at a later date.Results from observationsThe researcher chose to observe young children in a variety of settings. The children at school were involved in a directed task namely a numeracy lesson about shape. The children at playgroup and at the childminders home were either playing or involved in semi-structured activities which gave stove for creativity and allowed for personal expression, un desire the numeracy lesson the play, art and music tasks excluded the tone for right and improper.The children in all 3 settings produced a variety of results and their scope for creativity was dependent uponThe environsThe activityThe resources availableThe level of adult support and intervention tidings of Playgroup Observation 1The observations at the playgroup showed trey aspects of the process using the Possibility Thinking framework namelyPosing questionsPlay preoccupancy and making connectionsThey also included three aspects of process outcomeBeing imaginative Innovation fortune takingThere was little evidence of development or innovation but this was probably due to the fact that the children were aged between two to four. The first observation on 7th December 2009 showed the youngsters involved in a Christmas workshop making cards and 3D reindeers. The children were excited and constantly posing questions about what colours and materials to use. The children were immersed in the activity and the outcomes were imaginative and showed they were happy to take risks. The youngsters were confident and supported by numerous adults thus the level of adult supervision was high.Discussion of Playgroup Observation 2The second observation took place at the playgroup on January 18th 2010. The youngsters were allowed to play in the sand and water, home corner and with construction toys such as bricks and Lego. The boys were more interested in the construction toys, whilst the girls predominately played in the home corner.All children were immersed in play and asked questions. They were imaginative and took risks except there was little evidence of innovation or development. The level of adult supervision was quite high however the intervention by the adults was low.Discussion of Childminders ObservationThe researcher visited a childminders home on Friday 18th December 2009 when she was looking after three children. The youngsters played with construction toys, jigsaws, dolls house, and my little ponies. They then played with musical instruments such as a drum set and maracas. The children were thrilled to make music.The three children constantly chatted to each other. They played together and on their own. The boys were immersed in creating a brio course and Lego models whereas the girl immersed herself in the imaginary world of my little pony.All three children were imaginative and creative specially when the musical instruments appeared. They discovered different sounds and ways of making music and formed a mini band.Discu ssion of Numeracy Lesson observation (year one on shape)The researcher expected the lesson to have limited opportunities for creativity due to space and structure constraints. She views numeracy as a factual, uncreative lesson which focuses on the understanding of set rules. However the researcher was strike that the pupils ideas were welcomed and they could pose questions. The children could not really produce original work as there were right and wrong answers although they did explore different methods to get there so were given some ownership for their own learning. There was also some scope for development and innovation in their work. purpose of observationsThe aim of participant observations is to develop an understanding from the point of view of subjects without prejudice. The researcher achieved this by observing youngsters and their adult supervisors in a variety of settings whilst becoming a full trusted member of the group. All the children posed questions so as to fin d solutions to stimulate creative thinking. The youngsters at both the playgroup and childminders home had more opportunities to take risks than those in the classroom so had more chance to be creative.Empirical Chapter 2 Unstructured InterviewsIntroductionAn unstructured interview is like a guided conversation. The interviewer has the topic to cover but questions are open-ended. The researcher seeks to put the respondent at ease, in a relaxed informal situation and hopefully the questions will trigger go on discussion. The interviewer aims to obtain further depth than is possible in a structured interview. Unstructured interviews are from an interpretivist approach and provide qualitative data as they are concerned with peoples feelings and views.AimsUnstructured interviews provide rich, exact information where by the respondents can express their feelings about the issue of creativity and possibility thinking.Certain tasks such as art, music, drama and dance are more suitable to creative thinking.The learning milieu and teaching strategies need to provide scope for imagination if children are to produce a variety of outcomes and thus accommodate creative learning.MethodologyUnstructured interviewsThe researcher will interview three adults and conduct the interviews like a discussion with open-ended questions. She will be careful not to influence the replies so as to avoid interviewer bias. She will write shoot down the replies on an interview sheet but try not to disrupt the flow of the interviews. The replies will hopefully produce rich, qualitative information and comparisons between interviews can be drawn. The use of interviews, stimulate reflection and scathing conversations about possibility thinking as a form of engagement and strategy of creativity and the creative thinking process. The probing questions will allow the adults to focus on what they consider to be significant in the creative learning experiences.Interview 1ParticpantsBarnfield Pri mary School Stafford Year one class teacher.MaterialsProceduresThe researcher wrote to head to ask permission to interview a class teacher. The researcher visited the school to meet the teacher on Monday 14th December. The researcher carried out the interview on Tuesday 12th January 2010.AnalysisThe researcher will write the interview up on the interview sheet and compare the three interviews.Interview 2ParticpantsPortobello Community Centre playleaderMaterialsProceduresThe researcher contacted the play leader by telephone to discuss the interview. The researcher then carried out the interview on January 18th 2010.AnalysisThe researcher will write the interview up on the interview sheet and compare the three interviews.Interview 3ParticpantsRegistered childminder who is also a subject teacher.MaterialsProceduresThe researcher contacted the childminder by phone to discuss the interview. The interview was carried out on Monday 21st December 2009.AnalysisThe researcher will write the interview up on the interview sheet and compare the three interviews.Results from InterviewsThe researcher chose to interview the three adults who were involved in her observations. The questions had a focus related to creativity and possibility thinking but were open ended so allowed for development. All adults were interviewed in a quiet environment where they matte up at ease.The three adults all said they used similar strategies to encourage creativity namely standing back and providing a safe environment, with multiple resources that encouraged creative thinking. Two out of three adults were unsure that possibility thinking was central to creative learning but thought strategies such as posing questions and giving children time and space does develop the notation of possibility thinking. All three adults thought the environment was important for creative learning and believed a safe, challenging experience helps to provide opportunities for imaginative experiences. All three a dults felt some tasks were more suited to creative thinking such as dance, music and play however the class teacher thought subjects such as maths and science should provide opportunities for creative thinking.Discussion of Interviews with year one teacher, play leader and registered childminderAll three adults interviewed discussed different strategies they used to encourage children to be creative that included giving youngsters time and space and providing a variety of resources which allowed children to explore activities in imaginative ways. The children were allowed to pose questions and take risks. They felt the environment and the tasks offered were crucial to creative thinking however only the class teacher thought possibility thinking was central to creative learning. They all thought that creativity begins with curiosity and is developed if children are given the opportunity to explore and experiment with different resources and ideas.Conclusion of interviewsThe aim of un structured interviews was to provide rich identical information whereby respondents could express their feelings about creativity and possibility thinking. All three interviewees gave the researcher detailed insight into the adults views about the research issue. All three interviews felt certain tasks such as art and music were more suitable to creative thinking. They gave a detailed account of how the learning environment and strategies such as giving children time and space provide opportunities for imagination and creative learning.ConclusionNACCCE (1999) argued creativity is imaginative actively fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are both original and of value. According to Craft possibility thinking is at the heart of creativity in education. This idea has implications as the engagement of learners according to Jeffrey (2005) leads to engagement with problems.Fostering childrens possibility thinking can be seen as building their resilience and confidence and referencing their capabilities as confident explorers, meaning makers and decision makers. (Craft 2005).Possibility thinking involves problem finding and solving. Creative teaching may foster learner creativity providing there are co-participative partnerships between teachers and learners, in which they explore issues, pose questions, identify problems and reflect upon their thinking and learning. The key factor being that the control has to be handed back to the learner (Craft and Jeffery 2003).In seeking to unravel the issues of what constitutes possibility thinking in the learning experiences of young children and how teachers, play leaders and childminders foster possibility thinking as an aspect of creativity, the researcher carried out observations and interviews. She used probing questions and encouraged the adults to engage in in-depth reflective practice.Following death observations in each context using the possibility thinking documentation framework and further interviews with the adults in charge, core areas of possibility thinking in childrens learning were identified. They included the three aspects of process i.e posing questions, play immersion and inversion. They also included the three aspects of process outcome i.e being imaginative, innovation and risk taking.The observations were written up in the light of the three-fold-structure. Many of the youngsters were involved in risk taking and were immersed in an activity. On the outcomes there was little evidence of development and the question of taking intentional action was problematic as many of the children were too young. In terms of process outcome the notation of innovation was also baffling as what might be normal for one child in one particular environment may not be normal for another. The separation of process and outcome is not easy during the early years as young children often take risks to move their thinking forward but this may not be an outcome. The integration between creative teachi ng and learning also seemed to foster possibility thinking. If young children feel safe they gain confidence as with the children in all three observational settings.The three interviews highlighted the fact that they all tried to foster creativity in their youngsters by providing a touch on learning environment which allowed the children to pose questions and explore a variety of outcomes in an imaginative way. The adults tried to stand back but felt some tasks were more suited to creative thinking than others.The aim of the research was to investigate whether possibility thinking is at the heart of creativity in young children. Researchers such as Professor Anna Craft believe it is so as does one out of three of the adults interviewed. Many researchers such as Craft, Jeffrey, Burnard and Chappel all feel creativity and imagination allow young children to learn and develop.If children are to be creative, adults need to give them freedom to develop. Cremin, Burnard and Craft (2006 ) found that in a twelve month study carried out in schools that teachers needed to stand back and give children time and space to foster possibility thinking. The observations and interviews carried out by the researcher reinforced this.The final hypothesis was that the resources, environment and tasks affect the possibilities for creative thinking. The observations and interviews with adults corroborate this. Deciding whether the motivation of pupils based on the creative setting was difficult to determine as she only carried out observations in three settings and only interviewed three adults, thus her findings were limited.Possibility thinking does appear to influence creativity but the sample was small and the decisions the researcher made were subjective and not based upon clinical scientific testing.BibliographyBlaxter,L. (2001). How To Research. Second edition. England. Open University press.Browne,K. (2006). Introducing Sociology for AS level. Second edition. Cambridge. P olity Press.British Educational Research Association (BERA). Online. (http//www.bera.ac.uk/blog/2010/03/04/exploration-and-analysis-on-creativity-and-innovation-in-initial-vocational-education-and-training/). (Accessed 10.12.2009)Britzman, D. (1986) Cultural myths in the making of a teacher biography and social structurein teacher education. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), pp. 442-446.Burnard, P., Craft, A. and Grainger, T. (2006), Possibility Thinking, International Journal of Early Years Education. Volume 14. No. 3, October 2006 pp 243-262Chappell, K. (2006). Creativity within late primary age dance education Unlocking expert specialist dance teachers conceptions and approaches. Online.(Available from http//kn.open.ac.uk/public/document.cfm?documentid=8627). London. (Accessed 21.01.2010)Claxton, G. (2008). Creativity, Wisdom and Trusteeship. k Oaks, CA., Corwin Press.Craft, A. (1997).Can You Teach Creativity? Nottingham. Routeledge.Craft, A. (1999) Creative development in the early years some implications of policy for practice.Online. (http//www.informaworld.com/smpp/ field of studycontent=a739635700db=all). The Curriculum Journal. Volume 10(Issue 1). (Accessed 002.01.2010).Craft, A. (2000), Creativity Across the Primary Curriculum. London. RoutledgeCraft, A. (2001) Little c Creativity. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey and M. Leibling Creativity in Education. London.Continuum.Craft, A. (2002).Creativity and Early Years Education. London. Continuum BooksCraft, A. (2005) Creativity in schools tensions and dilemmas. Abingdon.Routledge.Craft ,A. (2008). Creativity in the school.Online.(http//www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/ch3_final_craft_creativityinschool_20081218.pdf). Exeter. Open University. (Accessed 02.01.2010)Craft, A. Creativity and Possibillity in the Early Years.Online (http//www.tactyc.org.uk/pdfs/Reflection_craft.pdf). (Accessed 02.12.2009)Craft, A. Cremin, T., Burnard, P.(2006) Pedagogy and possibility thinking in the early years.On line. (http//www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL_udi=B7XN8-4M2WTP9-1_user=10_coverDate=11%2F30%2F2006_rdoc=1_fmt=high_orig=search_sort=d_docanchor=view=c_searchStrId=1255424291_rerunOrigin=google_acct=C000050221_version=1_urlVersion=0_userid=10md5=0241bbe9052a7b6bb3b1e704447d2c06). International Journal of Thinking Skills and Creati