Advertisement

The Case for Slow Curriculum: Creative Subversion and the Curriculum Mind

  • Kate Kauper
  • Mary M. Jacobs
Chapter
Part of the Creativity Theory and Action in Education book series (CTAE, volume 3)

Abstract

This chapter examines the constructs of time as it pertains to creativity in teacher education. In particular, we propose the practice of “slow curriculum” as a means to support the conditions for creative expression by students and teachers. Like the slow food movement, a slow curriculum contests an industrial system that privileges efficiency and markets over holistic alternatives that encourage creativity and well-being. As classroom teachers feel the pressure of market-based dictums, the tendency to privilege outcomes over processes limit opportunities for creative expression for teachers and students. The authors present three approaches for implementing slow curriculum and offer recommendations for curriculum planning that encourages creative works in the classroom: the adoption of curriculum mindedness, creative subversion, and improvisational teaching. Each of these strategies is presented as working in tandem to support a slow curriculum movement for preservice and practicing teachers.

Keywords

Creativity Curriculum Ecology of schools Improvisation Teaching Teacher education Time 

References

  1. Allington, R. L., & Pearson, P. D. (2011). The casualties of policy on early literacy development. Language Arts, 89(1), 70–74.Google Scholar
  2. Amabile, T. M. (2017). In pursuit of everyday creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 51, 335–337.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Applebee, A., Langer, J., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685–730. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3699449 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Au, W., & Ferrare, J. J. (2015). Mapping corporate education reform: Politics and power in the neoliberal state. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrantes-Vidal, N. (2004). Creativity & madness revisited from current psychological perspectives. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 11(3–4), 3–4.Google Scholar
  6. Beghetto, R. A. (2009). In search of the unexpected: Finding creativity in the micro-moments of the classroom. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 2–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertagnolli, O., & Rakham, J. (Eds.). (1982). Creativity and the Writing Process. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Cisneros-Puebla, C. A. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and creative subversion: Challenges in the context of terror. In Southern Hemisphere Ethnographies of Space, Place and Time (pp. 17–30). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  9. Court, M., & O’Neill, J. (2011). ‘Tomorrow’s Schools’ in New Zealand: From social democracy to market managerialism. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 43(2), 119–140.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2011.560257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Craft, A. (2003). The limits to creativity in education: Dilemmas for the educator. British Journal of Educational Studies, 51, 113–127.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8527.t01-1-00229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cremin, T., Bearne, E., Mottram, M., & Goodwin, P. (2008). Primary teachers as readers. English in Education, 42(1), 8–23.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-8845.2007.00001.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Danielson, M. T. (2009). Homecoming queers: Desire and difference in Chicana Latina cultural production. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Delpit, L. (2012). Multiplication is for white people: Raising expectations for other people’s children. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. (1946). Interaction and transaction. Journal of Philosophy, 43(19), 505–517.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2019771 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duncheon, J., & Tierney, W. (2013). Changing conceptions of time: Implications for educational research and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83(2), 236–272. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24434158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Eisner, E. W. (1992). Educational reform and the ecology of schooling. Teachers College Record, 93(4), 610–627. Retrieved from http://proxy.lib.uiowa.edu/login?url=https:// search-proquest-com.proxy.lib.uiowa.edu/docview/62841526?accountid=14663 Google Scholar
  18. Eisner, E. W. (1994). Cognition and curriculum reconsidered (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  19. Eisner, E. W. (2002). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Freeman, E. (2010). Time binds: Queer temporalities, queer histories. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gee, J. P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Giddins, G. (1998). Visions of jazz: The first century. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Goodman, K. (2014). Whose knowledge counts: The pedagogy of the absurd. In K. S. Goodman, R. C. Calfee, & Y. M. Goodman (Eds.), Whose knowledge counts in government literacy policies? Why expertise matters (pp. 21–36). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Graham, M. (2008). The fringe of Nirvana: Aesthetic Places in the Art Classroom. In D. A. Gruenewald & G. A. Smith (Eds.), Place-based education in the global age: Local diversity (pp. 29–47). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  26. Gruenewald, D. A., & Smith, G. A. (Eds.). (2008). Place-based education in the global age: Local diversity. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Gutierrez, K., Rymes, B., & Larson, J. (1995). Script, counterscript, and underlife in the classroom: James brown versus brown v. board of education. Harvard Educational Review, 65(3), 445. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/login?url=https:// search-proquest-com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/docview/212249508?accountid=8424 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harnad, S. (2007). Creativity. Method or Magic? In H. Cohen & B. Stemmer (Eds.), Consciousness and cognition: Fragments of mind and brain (pp. 127–137). Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. Holland, D., Lachicotti, W., Jr., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Huebner, D. (1976). The moribund curriculum field: Its wake and our work. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(2), 153–167.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1179760 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hursh, D. (2007). Assessing no child left behind and the rise of neoliberal education policies. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 493–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Irwin, M. R. (2018). Arts shoved aside: Changing practices in primary schools since the introduction of national standards. The International Journal of Art and Design Education, 37(1), 18–28. Retrieved from.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12096 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. James, D. (2018). Learning cultures, reflexivity and creative subversion. In C. Matthews, U. Edgington, & A. Channon (Eds.), Teaching with sociological imagination in higher and further education. Singapore, Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Jones, P., & Warren, S. (2016). Time, rhythm and the creative economy. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 41(3), 286–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kasof, J. (1995). Explaining creativity: The attributional perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 11–366.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0804_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kohl, H. (2006). A love supreme—riffing on the standards: Placing ideas at the center of high stakes schooling. Multicultural Education, 14(2), 4–9.Google Scholar
  37. Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Runco, M. A. (2010). Theories of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 20–47). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35, 3–12.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Langer, E. J. (1997). The power of mindful learning. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  40. Launer, J. (2015). Creative subversion. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 91, 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Linstead, S., & Mullarkey, J. (2003). Time, creativity and culture: Introducing Bergson. Culture and Organization, 9(1), 3–13.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14759550302799 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lortie, D. C. (2007). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (Original work published 1976.).Google Scholar
  43. Marsland, D., & Seaton, N. (1993). The empire strikes back: The creative subversion of the national curriculum. New York, NY: Campaign for Real Education.Google Scholar
  44. Monson, I. (1996). Saying something: Jazz improvisation and interaction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Moroye, C. M. (2009). Complementary curriculum: The work of ecologically minded teachers. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(6), 789–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moroye, C. M., & Uhrmacher, P. B. (2009). Aesthetic themes and the art of teaching. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 11(1 & 2), 85–101.Google Scholar
  47. Mullen, C. A. (2017). In students’ best interest: What are teacher views of ethical learning and leading? Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue Journal, 19(1), 87–103.Google Scholar
  48. Mullet, D. R., Willerson, A. N., Lamb, K., & Kettler, T. (2016). Examining teacher perceptions of creativity: A systematic review of the literature. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 21, 9–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., & Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 740–764.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015576 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Myhill, D., & Wilson, A. (2013). Playing it safe: Teachers’ views of creativity in poetry writing. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. New Zealand Labour Party. (2018). Labour’s education manifesto. Retrieved from http://www.labour.org.nz/educationmanifesto
  52. Noddings, N. (2012). The caring relation in teaching. Oxford Review of Education, 38(6), 771–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Null, W. (2011). Curriculum: From theory to practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  54. Onosko, J. (2011). Race to the top leaves children and future citizens behind: The devastating effects of centralization, standardization, and high stakes accountability. Democracy & Education, 19(2), 1–11.Google Scholar
  55. Paris, D., & Alim, S. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  56. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2008). Transition brief: Policy recommendations on preparing Americans for the global skills race. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/p21_transition_paper_nov_24_2008.pdf.
  57. Pearson, P. D. (2007). An endangered species act for literacy education. Journal of Literacy Research, 39, 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Petrini, C. (2004). Slow food: The case for taste. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Petrini, C., Watson, B., & Slow Food (Organization). (2001). Slow food: Collected thoughts on taste, tradition, and the honest pleasures of food. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Pub.Google Scholar
  60. Sawchuk, S. (2009). Motives of 21st-Century-Skills Group questioned. Education Week, 29(14), 18–21.Google Scholar
  61. Sawyer, R. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12–20. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/stable/3699971 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schmidt, R., Jacobs, M. M., & Meyer, H. (2017). Sociopoliticsal testing discourses in elementary teachers’ talk about reading assessment. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 16(3), 391–406.  https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-05-2017-0066 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schwab, J. (1971). The practical: Arts of eclectic. The School Review, 79(4), 493–542. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1084342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schwab, J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. The School Review, 81(4), 501–522. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1084423 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.Google Scholar
  66. Simplicio, J. S. C. (2000). Teaching classroom educators how to be more effective and creative teachers. Education, 120(4), 675.Google Scholar
  67. Sobel, D. (2013). Place-based education: Connecting classrooms and communities (2nd ed.). Great Barrington, MA: The Orion Society.Google Scholar
  68. Stromquist, N. (2002). Education in a globalized world: The connectivity of economic power, technology, and knowledge. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. Suro, M. D. (1986). Romans protest McDonalds (p. 20). The New York Times.Google Scholar
  70. Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (2007). Curriculum development: Theory into practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill.Google Scholar
  71. Taubman, P. (2014). “EJ” in focus: The art of the impossible: Professional study and the making of teachers. The English Journal, 103(6), 14–19. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24484374 Google Scholar
  72. Treffinger, D., & Isaksen, S. (2001). Teaching for creative learning and problem solving. In A. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (pp. 442–445). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  73. Uhrmacher, P. B. (2009). Toward a theory of aesthetic learning experiences. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(5), 613–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Uhrmacher, P. B., Conrad, B. M., & Moroye, C. M. (2013). Finding the balance between process and product through perceptual lesson planning. Teachers College Record, 115(7), 1–27.Google Scholar
  75. Wagner, C. J., Ossa Parra, M., & Proctor, C. P. (2017). The interplay between student-led discussions and argumentative writing. TESOL Quarterly, 51, 438–449.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cornell CollegeMount VernonUSA
  2. 2.University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations