Blog
About

35
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Silences and silence in 'creativity'

      London Review of Education

      IOE Press

      CREATIVITY, IMAGINATION, TEACHING

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This reflective piece – written primarily to provoke discussion – raises some questions about and for the recent 'creativity agenda' in educational policy in England, suggesting that something fundamental is missing. The author argues that 'creativity' has characteristically been defined in recent policy discourse as a set of skills concerned with developing independent thinking, problem-solving and flexible working. 'Creativity' thus turns out to be intimately and explicitly allied to 'employability'. The author believes that creativity, on the contrary, is stimulated by the encouragement of vivid inner lifeworlds, a sense of imaginative interiority and a sensuously-felt subjectivity – as exemplified in S.T. Coleridge's poem Kubla Khan. She argues that these are part of pedagogic responsibility as well as a sine qua non for the work of the imagination. The author is writing in her role as poet (who also leads creative writing workshops, including for teachers), rather than as a researcher.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          10430
          London Review of Education
          IOE Press
          1474-8460
          01 July 2012
          : 10
          : 2
          : 215-225
          Article
          1474-8460(20120701)10:2L.215;1- s8.phd /ioep/clre/2012/00000010/00000002/art00008
          10.1080/14748460.2012.691285
          Product
          Categories
          Articles

          Comments

          Comment on this article

          London Review of Education
          Volume 10, Issue 2

          Similar content 215