SCHOOL EDUCATION OBJECTIVES, CREATIVITY AND OPEN EDUCATION SYSTEMS Janez Justin

The educationist’s permanent call for change in the educational process  The content of that call: ‘productive thinking’ ‘productive thinking’ ‘critical thinking’ ‘critical thinking’ ‘problem solving’ ‘problem solving’ ‘creativity’ etc. ‘creativity’ etc.

A 1950’s description of school education objectives  »Arguments in terms of the needs and demands of society point out that we cannot expect to progress unless we develop the creative potentialities of the entire population. This is partly a problem of identifying creative talent, but it also is one of exploring the nature of productive thinking and of finding better ways of cultivating it.” (Bloom, 1956)

A classification of the pupil’s thinking  1. knowledge  2. comprehension  3. application  4. analysis  5. synthesis  6. evaluation

The fifth class: synthesis  Synthesis is associated with: creative thinking creative thinking uniqueness uniqueness new patterns new patterns productive thinking productive thinking problem solving problem solving discoveries discoveries

An equation:  Interest in operational objectives = interest in assessement systems

The first criticism:  1. An obsession with operational objectives gives rise to pre-packaged learning modules enabling quantitative assessment of student performance.  2. The teachers and students make efforts towards mastery of pre-defined knowledge.  3. This undermines curiosity, imagination, creativity, and criticism. We thus put the pupils on an intellectual diet.

The second criticism  1.The lower end objectives – knowledge, comprehension, application – are meant for those whose fate is to become fully functioning consumers and production workers.  2.The higher end objectives – analysis, synthesis, evaluation – are meant for those who are to become political and business leaders.

A question, an answer  A question: Is it true that in the educational process that is piloted by detailed, meticulously assessed objectives there is little room for pupil’s creativity? Is it true that in the educational process that is piloted by detailed, meticulously assessed objectives there is little room for pupil’s creativity?  An answer: The question is ill-formed. It is based on a sort of semantic slippage. We are in fact dealing with two different types of creativity. The question is ill-formed. It is based on a sort of semantic slippage. We are in fact dealing with two different types of creativity.

A false equation: knowledge = information  “We are awash in data. A little of it is information. A smidgen of this shows up as knowledge. Combined with ideas, some of that is actually useful.”

The thinking process  The mind does not think with data and information, it thinks with concepts that imply points of view and perspectives.  Concepts are units of theories that provide us with ‘versions of the world’.

The school and other contexts  The school is a specific context where just one among many possible ‘versions of the world’ is constructed for the pupils.  In other contexts – local communities and industries, public services etc. – different concepts circulate, establishing sometimes different perspectives and creating different ‘versions of the world’.

The two types of creativity  The creativity A: Pupils make synthesis within a single context (i.e. school) and single ‘version of the world’ Pupils make synthesis within a single context (i.e. school) and single ‘version of the world’  The creativity B: Pupils make synthesis while dealing with several contexts and ‘versions of the world’ Pupils make synthesis while dealing with several contexts and ‘versions of the world’

Questions that remain to be answered  Should we pursue both types of creativity, and if so, what shares should they have in the education process?  How can we make sure that the creativity B resulting from association of different contexts does not interfere with the creativity A that is limited to the academic context?  What strategy should be used in order to establish an open education system in which the two types of creativity complement each other?