Digital arts in the curriculum

Leisure, learning and ICTs

Exchange, communication and representation

---

Group and Individual Creativity

Rebekah Willett, Liesbeth de Block - The Institute of Education, University of London

One evident theme arising from a comparison of the work produced by and for Animated Debate is the contrast between work made by young people, working by themselves as individuals and as part of a team. This can be seen very clearly in the "canvasses" produced by the groups in the UK working on the London Eye project, for example, where each student has produced their own work and comparing this with the quite lengthy animations telling the story of the myth of Hercules from Sicily. If we examine all the work produced over the duration of the project we can see that products made by young people made in all countries can actually be divided up in this way. For some of the projects young people worked on their own projects from inception to conclusion. On the other hand, the class or groups managed the process and individuals were either volunteered for or assigned to, discrete elements of the production. There are a number of implications for pedagogy, content, creativity and communication in the uses of these different processes and the purpose of this paper is to articulate some of these broader questions.

It should be stated at the outset that the project is fundamentally neutral in its approach to these questions. We think there are clear advantages and disadvantages to making media as individuals or in groups. It is important that teachers have a clear sense of these argument rather than follow a prescriptive method. Equally teachers will adapt the best method for their circumstances.

Creativity and Learning

it is impossible to discuss the evaluation of creative arts-based activities by young people without addressing what we might mean by creativity in the first place. Whilst some teachers and artist use terms like imagination or even inspiration and traditionally, these processes these have been seen as crucial to creative activity. However, as Sefton-Green (2000) notes, we frequently characterise the creative process as a kind of dialogue. In all our work the making process is described as a collective activity, often involving group work and the social nature of the creative process is of paramount importance.

There are three reason for this approach. First of all the pedagogic perspective emphasises that creativity employs skills and that these have to be learnt. Secondly, that even gifted individuals learn within the social environment of the school or studio and that their development is not an entirely individualistic matter. Finally, we suggest that digital artists all work with a model of making which emphasises how products relate to the immediate and wider social influences surrounding their production. This is not, we would emphasise, any attempt to impose a crude model of Marxist economic determinism but it does show how creativity is now conceptualised as a complex social process and not simply as an attribute of special individuals.

This shift in emphasis is significant for two reasons. First, at a general level it shows how the romantic model of the creative artist, with its origins in the myth of divine inspiration, has to an extent been replaced with an understanding of the creative process as a complex, socially embedded multi-dimensional affair (see Kearney 1988). This is partly the result of post-structuralist theories of writing (e.g. Barthes 1977) and partly the growth of art-forms, especially multimedia, as Sinker (2000) argues, which are the result of collaborative activity. Secondly, it is very difficult for educationalists to make much use of the romantic theory of creativity because such ideas frequently suggest that gifted individuals are born rather than made -- thus leaving little space for the influence of teachers. Whilst some teachers may feel this is sometimes the case, the theory of romantic creativity and gifted individuals offers little insight into how such individuals develop and it does not explain the importance and value of creative activities for all those young people, for whom production, in one form or another may be as valuable for the learning process as much as for the outcome of the creative activity.

If there is a shift in emphasis within education towards a social rather than a romantic theory of creativity (see especially Toynbee 2000) then it poses a number of challenges. First of all, many of the contributors to discussions about creativity in Education stress dialogue and interaction, with a premium being placed on the teacher as mediator of the creative process. This is not easy to assess and it is not easy to allocate marks to individuals within schemes where individuals are compared against one another. Indeed the competitive nature of the examination system is frequently in conflict with teachers' abilities to even address the complexity of the making process, especially as Buckingham et al (2000) describe, where making may be the result of a group activity. This conflict is both practical and ideological, in that, to return again to macro-sociological perspectives, one aim of the examination system is to individuate students through differentiation from their peers, and the romantic model of creativity which rewards the creative individual, is the appropriate paradigm for this kind of differentiation.

Finally, in this section we want to suggest that a social model of creativity has greater vocational relevance than the romantic paradigm. As has been noted, creative activities in schools are often valued for their general educational worth, group work, discussion, negotiation etc. rather than their specific arts based value. For example, Drama is frequently cited as the subject many employers look to find on applicants' CV's for precisely these kinds of reasons - that Drama gives students confidence in presenting themselves and ideas and these are the kinds of skills valued in the workplace. Leaving aside the question of whether Drama can fulfil this kind of training function, it is important to note that working collaboratively in teams to set briefs, is precisely the kind of contemporary labour skills allegedly in short supply (see Bentley 1998 Ch. 8; for a critique of flexible labour see Cohen 1990). The kind of process described in a Drama, Media or Design classroom with an emphasis on peer and self-evaluation is exactly this kind of practical or "useful" education despite its exclusion from National Curriculum Orders in the UK. The critical dialogue emphasised in Art or even Music suggests qualities of self-criticism and reflexivity: again qualities allegedly in demand by employers. We am not suggesting that creative activities in the curriculum be solely tailored to the demands of employers, or even that arts activities have to be validated by their vocational relevance. However, given that most students will derive transferable rather than subject specific value from creative activities at school it is important that we pay attention to a process of evaluation which credits the social nature of production rather than solely values the gifts of unique individuals.

Our work exemplifies these interesting tensions and debates very clearly. The longer more complex narratives made in the Polish/Sicilian and/or the Polish/Romanian groups asked the students to fulfil discrete production roles in the manner of a large ‘industrial' studio – typical of the animation industry. This is quite different from the more individualistic arts practice found in the Polish/British groups. Of course it is only really possible to get students to make longer narratives if they are organised in this fashion and they access different kinds of learning opportunities from working this way. On the other hand, students are limited to single roles and often can feel constrained by being part of the larger production. If this only part of their learning in this medium, the experience can be put down to a part in a stepped process but if this is their only opportunity to work with digital tools, it can be frustrating. This is not to say that the individualistic model is necessarily "better" in any way because the students are limited by time and complexity in what they can achieve and anyway, as the preceding discussion makes clear, the nature of the learning is circumscribed too.

Our focus on socially excluded groups also meant that finding ways to involve and ensure participation from young people who may be unable, disinclined or find difficulties in participating in work also meant that these different models of creativity offered different points of entry. The highly structured production chain supports and "scaffolds" students (Vygotsky 1962). It sets clear, achievable goals and makes for an organised and productive classroom or studio. The individualistic model can offer too much choice and freedom for students who require a more "closed" educational environment. On the other hand, students who find learning difficult and oppressive may find a reduction in their choices, alienating and constricting.

Finally, we should note that the different production models has implications for other dimensions of this project. The collective production model means that it is difficult to foster individuals communication by members of a team with other members of other teams in other countries as collective ownership means different things to different participants. The individualistic model can encourage a protective and proprietorial attitude and this may not encourage dialogue with others.

In conclusion we want to suggest that this project as a whole exemplified key trends in debates about creativity and digital technology and learning. We can see examples of collective groups work and individual "romantic" creativity. We can see the advantages of the production assembly line and the positive feature of the studio arts-practitioner model. We would suggest that its advantageous for students to experience all types of models and for teachers to know how and when students should progress through these different experiences.

References

1. Barthes R. (1977) "Image, Music, Text", London, Fontana Press
2. Bentley, T. (1998) "Learning Beyond the Classroom: Education for a Changing World" London: Routledge.
3. Buckingham, D. Fraser, P. & Sefton-Green, J. (2000) "Making the grade, evaluating student production in Media Studies" in Sefton-Green, J. & Sinker , R. [eds] "Evaluating Creativity: Making and Learning by Young People" London Routledge
4. Cohen, P. (1990) "Teaching enterprise culture: individualism, vocationalism and the new right" in Taylor, I. [ed] The Social Effect of Market Policies Brighton: Harvester Wheatsheet.
5. Kearney, R. (1988) The Wake of Imagination; Ideas of Creativity in Western Culture, London: Hutchinson.
6. Sefton-Green, J. (2000) "From creativity to cultural production" in Sefton-Green, J. & Sinker , R. [eds] Evaluating Creativity: Making and Learning by Young People’ London Routledge
7. Sinker, R. (2000) "Making multimedia: evaluating young people's creative multimedia production" in Sefton-Green, J. & Sinker , R. [eds] "Evaluating Creativity: Making and Learning by Young People" London Routledge
8. Toynbee, J. (2000) Making Popular Music: Musicians, Creativity and Institutions London: Hodder Headline.
9. Vygotsky, L. (1962) Thought and Language (trans. Hanfmann E. & Vakar G.), Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.