Comments?

Like PDK at www.

facebook.com/pdkintl

Wheres the
revolution?
Bringing creative thinking and personalization
into all classrooms would be a true revolution
in learning.

By Nan E. Hathaway and Diane B. Jaquith

Every education system in the world is being reformed at the moment. And its not
enough. Reform is no use anymore because thats simply improving a broken model.
What we need is not evolution but a revolution in education.
Sir Ken Robinson (2010)

American education today wants what it cant quite grasp cre-

ativity in teaching and learning. Creativity isnt really elusive we
can sense it when we experience it but an infusion of creativity in
schools requires fundamental changes in attitude and approach. Sir
Ken Robinson believes transformation is essential to bring creative
thinking into schools (2009). Change is hard. Who will take the

NAN E. HATHAWAY (nhathaway2@myfairpoint.net) is a middle school art teacher in Duxbury, Vt., and past chair of the National
Association for Gifted Children Creativity Network. DIANE B. JAQUITH (dbjaquith@gmail.com) is an elementary art teacher in
Newton, Mass. Together, they are editors of The Learner-Directed Classroom: Developing Creative Thinking Skills through Art
(Teachers College Press, 2012).

V95 N6 kappanmagazine.org 25
Thinkstock/iStock
 first step to embrace ambiguity, the hallmark of cre-
ativity? Who will risk public scrutiny to take a stand
for innovation? Who will go the extra mile to infuse
daily instruction with personalized learning? As re-
form initiatives are added layer upon layer, teachers
speak of a broken system, untenable expectations, low
morale, and students who quit. Too often, learning
remains a passive endeavor where teachers dispense
knowledge for students to acquire, retain, and repeat
back on tests. In a recent study, Kyung Hee Kim
(2011) unveiled a disturbing trend: Over the past two
decades, students IQs have increased while their ca-
pacity for creative thinking has decreased, especially
among elementary students. Kim states, To reverse
decline in creative thinking, the United States should
reclaim opportunities for its students and teachers
to think flexibly, critically, and creatively. Standard-
ization should be resisted (p. 294). Its time we give
Robinsons theories serious consideration.
Transformative practices
To transform education, Robinson (2009) recom-
mends three major changes: Dispense with subject
hierarchy, focus on curricular disciplines instead of
subjects, and elevate personalization. Lets examine
the first idea, the ranking of subject priority. Read-
ing and math have dominated most school schedules
since NCLB went into effect, thus reducing time
for every other subject (Ravitch, 2010). Academic
achievement as measured by testing is not necessar-
ily improved by narrowing the curriculum, as Diane
Ravitch explains:
Test prep is not always the best preparation for taking
tests. Children expand their vocabulary and improve
their reading skills when they learn history, science,
and literature, just as they may sharpen their math-
ematics skills while learning science and geography.
And the arts may motivate students to love learning.
(p. 108)
Reducing, marginalizing, and eliminating pro-
grams that arent measured by standardized tests de-
creases opportunities for students to learn through
individual strengths and interests while developing
creative thinking skills. Curricular decisions clearly
inform all stakeholders especially students
about what is and is not deemed important by adults.
In the most watched TED Talk of all time with over
23.5 million views (May, 2013), Robinson unabash-
edly states: Creativity is now as important as lit-
eracy, and we should treat it with the same status
(2006).
Robinsons second transformative concept con-
siders sets of disciplines, rather than singular sub-
jects, in order to broaden connections across the
curriculum. Children do not compartmentalize their
26 Kappan March 2014
learning until schooling causes them to think this
way. A child was overheard to comment that her fa-
vorite subject is math. Her teacher stated, I thought
art was your favorite subject. The girl replied, Art
is not a subject. It is a special. In fact, art is so spe-
cial that it activates thinking through science, math,
history, language, and technology! The same can be
said for every other discipline studied in school. It is
through cross-disciplinary connections that children
deepen their understandings about the world. Edu-
cation does a grave disservice to students by enforc-
ing artificial curricular boundaries.
The thinking that everyone needs to acquire
precisely the same knowledge set to succeed is fun-
damentally flawed. Rather than presuming that the
adults know precisely what every child must mas-
ter in order to succeed, students can demonstrate
what they need to move forward. Teachers watch
for and expand upon emergent curriculum, which
originates in student questions, comments, and other
observed behaviors in and outside of class. Students
can heighten their learning experiences through in-
clination and alertness:
To educate for understanding, educators have to
nurture two other elements of dispositions beyond
skill: inclination the drive, need, or passion that
pushes people to use their skills and alertness the
sensitivity, awareness, or recognition of connections
among the bits of information that constantly stream
past us. (Hetland, 2013, p. 67)
The third change, personalization, invests stu-
dents in their learning. Effective practices that pro-
pel learners toward meaningful connections promote
choice and personal relevance (Renzulli, Leppien, &
Hays, 2000; Tomlinson et al., 2002). Personalization
is not the same as differentiation. In differentiated
instruction, the teacher designs learning activities on
several different levels to adjust for readiness, inter-
est, and learning style toward a common goal. This
practice helps teachers accommodate diverse student
needs and avoid teaching to the middle. Personaliza-
tion, on the other hand, could be considered learner-
differentiation, where students devise their own paths
to skills and knowledge. When teachers facilitate for
personalized learning, students are more likely to
reach for potential that may be overlooked or ob-
structed by standardized curriculum, which leaves
little time for divergence and discovery.
For personalization to be an effective pedagogical
tool, teachers shift a measure of control to the learner
and embrace their new role as mentor, facilitator, and
sometimes even peer. This is a radical departure for
most educators and falls into the experimental realm
that McNulty calls next practice (2010). McNulty
suggests that, in order for the field to grow, about
20% of teaching practice must be experimental. This
kind of innovation, he contends, doesnt come from
the top down but originates with progressive teach-
ers. Companies such as Google and 3M embrace the
concept of 20% time (Pink, 2009, p. 96) to spark
innovation in the workplace. These progressive or-
ganizations believe in their employees ability to self-
direct and self-motivate. Without the freedom to do
just that, advances in products and procedures are
compromised.
Education does a grave
disservice to students by
enforcing artificial curricular
boundaries.
What if we could extend this concept to educa-
tion? Envision setting aside 20% of class time for
self-directed learning, when students can practice
and apply cross-disciplinary skills through problem
finding, inquiry, divergent thinking, collaboration,
reflection, and evaluation of their creative pursuits.
Could growth in creative and critical thinking skills
justify a 20% reduction in the direct teaching of cur-
ricular content?
In Robinsons revolution, Its not about curricu-
lum. Its not about assessment. Its about pedagogy
(2003, p. 11). Experimentation and risk taking in
teaching are qualities school leaders can cultivate in
their faculty. A trusting school climate encourages
innovative practices by teachers and, ultimately, stu-
dents. The creative nature of the art classroom makes
this an ideal platform for initiating and launching
Robinsons revolutionary changes.
A model for creativity
Teaching for Artistic Behavior (TAB) is a grass-
roots movement originating nearly four decades ago
by art teachers frustrated by convergent and pre-
scriptive approaches in the school art style (Efland,
1976, p. 37) of mainstream art education. In tra-
ditional art programs, the teacher assigns projects
designed to teach various concepts and skills. Of-
ten these projects result in similar, predetermined
products. In contrast, TAB educators set up their
classrooms like artists studios, with materials, equip-
ment, and resources embedded into multiple studio
centers, each with a particular media focus such as
painting or ceramics. In this authentic setting, learn-
ing is personalized because students choose media
and content based on their interests. This model of
choice-based pedagogy provides a flexible construct
to meet the varied needs of schools, teachers, and
learners.
Learning in choice-based studio centers mirrors
the authentic work conducted by practicing artists.
The idea is that students learn best when theyre able
to work in the same manner as professionals in the
field (Renzulli, Leppien, & Hays, 2000). Authentic
classroom studios become safe spaces for explora-
tion, innovation, collaboration, and personalization
by all students, with strong focus on process, not
product. By examining the practices of adult artists,
relevant content and salient skills come into focus
and are incorporated into daily instruction.
In choice-based art programs, whole-group in-
struction typically starts the class and is deliber-
ately kept brief to maximize students studio time
(Douglas & Jaquith, 2009). Teaching for creativity
means examining and presenting only the essence of
what is significant in order to pique curiosities and
cultivate a climate of inquiry. This is no easy task
for teachers new to learner-directed pedagogy and
eager to transfer their wealth of knowledge (Ha-
thaway, 2013). Active teaching doesnt stop during
choice-studio time but shifts to small-group les-
sons, individual mentoring, observation and assess-
ment, and modeling artistic behavior. Autonomy
and personalized learning drive students decision-
making, as described by this 6th-grade boy:
We learn a new skill every day, but, if were in the
middle of something, we can choose to not use the
skill right away. We can use it at some other point.
Students have opportunities to develop a broad
range of executive functioning skills when they as-
sume responsibility for their work. Teachers ob-
serve where in the creative process individual stu-
dents falter and provide supports. A 3rd-grade girl
explains her process for preparation:
My planning skills are better because I have a journal
to write down a whole description of what I want to
do. I use it at home and when I have time in school
because I know what materials will be available in art
class. I have my plans written out so they dont just
come out of my mind into nowhere I know just
what I am going to do.
Self-pacing, a form of learner differentiation, is
a skill rarely practiced in school. Some students in
choice-based art classes work quickly and others pre-
fer to spend significant time on a single artwork. A
5th-grade boy says, One skill Ive gotten with choice
is patience, total patience, when something doesnt
fit right, and you have that image in your head that
V95 N6 kappanmagazine.org 27
 it needs to look like that image. This student was
able to revisit a single artwork off and on through-
out an entire school year, making gradual changes as
they came to him. He also completed other artworks
during that time, with the same focus and energy.
One size never fits all in choice-based classrooms.
Creative thinking through exploration of materials
and concepts is fueled by intrinsic motivators, in-
cluding curiosity, challenge, and passion (Amabile,
1996). Competition, often a deterrent of creativity, is
nonexistent because everyone is engaged in uniquely
appropriate, individual, or collaborative activities
that sustain focus, often over long periods of time
(Jaquith, 2011).
Envision setting aside 20% of class
time for self-directed learning
when students could practice cross-
disciplinary skills through problem
finding, inquiry, divergent thinking,
collaboration, reflection, and
evaluation of creative pursuits.
For students to work creatively, considerable
structure needs to be in place. People unfamiliar
with TAB programs may assume that the classroom
is always on the edge of chaos. However, clear ex-
pectations and predictable routines are essential for
students to feel comfortable with ambiguity in their
work. Studio centers are designed with resources to
support personalized learning and enliven creative
thinking. Flexible time-on-task guidelines adjust
to meet the varying degrees of student passion and
commitment.
The Teaching for Artistic Behavior concept has
expanded nationally through strong local and na-
tional advocacy efforts, regional professional learn-
ing communities, conference presentations, and ex-
tensive online visibility all organized and managed
by teachers. The movement is further propelled by
a swell of enthusiasm from administrators and par-
ents who observe that students, especially unconven-
tional and at-risk learners, flourish in self-directed
settings. For these students, choice-based pedagogy
provides varied opportunities for specialization and
mastery rarely found elsewhere in their school ex-
periences (Hathaway, 2012).
28 Kappan March 2014
Authentic learning environments
Authentic learning environments, including
those found in choice-based art programs, foster
creative thinking. Teachers balance foundational
domain-specific knowledge with skills requisite for
independent work. Through direct, small group,
and individual instruction, students learn about ar-
tistic process, artists, and art history. While students
self-direct their work, they develop skills in inquiry,
reflection, and evaluation. They practice ideation,
make decisions, find relevance, and create meaning.
As they build confidence in their abilities, students
are able to take greater risks with their work, often
collaborating with classmates in self-selected group-
ings. Collaborative work expands innovative think-
ing and empathy as students learn to compromise
and resolve creative differences.
This authentic approach to education challenges
traditional assumptions and expectations of whole-
class art projects, subject matter, and teacher as dis-
penser of knowledge. The ideal teacher in this set-
ting is well-rounded and nimble and can recognize
and extend emergent curriculum as it develops. A
teacher who is also an artist adds an additional mea-
sure of authenticity and empathy while embracing
the role of artist-in-residence. The long-held idea of
sequential art education is upended when students
are encouraged to go deeper into areas of personal
interest. Students remark that when they choose
and direct their projects they work harder and chal-
lenge themselves more than when the teacher runs
the show. One 4th grader said, If you dont like what
you are doing, you might not try so hard. If you do
like your work, you do your best and have fun, too!
A 7th grader adds, Its more likely for everyone to
participate when people can choose their own thing
rather than when the teacher is assigning something
that is expected to be done.
Art, like every discipline, is infinite. It is not
enough for curriculum to rest neatly within the nar-
row confines of static content in the form of the ele-
ments and principals of design, Western art history,
and disembodied skills and techniques stagnant
categories with closed ends. Innovative educators
question the accepted tomes and look toward themes
and emerging theory for dynamic curriculum that
meets contemporary learners needs (Gude, 2000).
From this, novelty and surprise result, which keep
teachers fresh and involved while promoting the idea
of teacher-as-learner. With curriculum originating
from creative inquiry, no two consecutive school
years will ever be the same.
Look to pedagogy
A decade has passed since Sir Ken Robinson first
called for an overhaul in education in support of cre-
ativity (2003, p. 11). Current practice wont meet
the needs of globalization if reform continues to
demand standardization and convergent behaviors
(Zhao, 2009). The art studio is a natural place for
revolutionary thinking to manifest. The creative ap-
proach teachers and learners take here can serve as
an example of the way forward.
When there is more information than can pos-
sibly be taught with even more content exploding
daily, progressive educators set a new agenda for
teaching and learning and prioritize innovation.
Look to pedagogy. The end product of education
is the whole child who can, through creative think-
ing, expand knowledge and skills, make meaningful
connections, and build relationships with the world.
Now is the time for education to heed Robinsons
call to arms. Let the revolution begin!K
References
Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Douglas, K.M. & Jaquith, D.B. (2009). Engaging learners
through artmaking: Choice-based art education in the
classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Pink, D.H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what
motivates us. New York, NY: Penguin.
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American
school system: How testing and choice are undermining
education. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Renzulli, J.S., Leppien, J.H., & Hays, T.S. (2000). The multiple
menu model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Robinson, K. (2003, April 5). Keynote address, 2nd general
session, National Art Education Association, Minneapolis, MN.
Robinson, K. (2006, February). How schools kill creativity. TED
Talks [video]. www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_
kill_creativity.html
Robinson, K. (2009). The element. New York, NY: Penguin.
Robinson, K. (2010, May). Bring on the learning revolution.
TED Talks [video]. www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_bring_
on_the_revolution.html
Tomlinson, C.A., Kaplan, S.N., Renzulli, J.S., Purcell, J.,
Leppien, J., & Burns, D. (2002). The parallel curriculum.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Zhao, Y. (2009). Catching up or leading the way: American
education in the age of globalization. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Efland, A. (1976). The school art style: A functional analysis.

Studies in Art Education, 17 (2), 37-44.

Gude, O. (2000). Investigating the culture of curriculum. In E.

Fehr, K. Fehr, & K. Keifer-Boyd (Eds.), Real-world readings in
art education: Things your professor never told you (pp. 75-
81). New York, NY: Falmer Press.

Hathaway, N.E. (2013). Smoke and mirrors: Art teacher as

magician. Art Education, 66 (3), 9-15.

Hathaway, N.E. (2012). Outlaws, rebels, and rogues: Creative

underachievers. In D.B. Jaquith & N.E. Hathaway (Eds.), The
learner-directed classroom: Developing creative thinking skills
through art (pp. 79-90). New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.

Hetland, L. (2013). Connecting creativity to understanding.

Educational Leadership, 70 (5), 65-70.

Jaquith, D.B. (2011). When is creativity? Art Education, 64 (1),

14-19.

Kim, K.H. (2011). The creativity crisis: The decrease in creative

thinking scores on the Torrance tests of creative thinking.
Creativity Research Journal, 23 (4), 285-295.

May, K.T. (2013). The 20 most popular TED Talks, as of

thismoment. TED Blog. http://blog.ted.com/2013/12/16/the-
most-popular-20-ted-talks-2013/

McNulty, R.J. (2010, October 11). Keynote address to

Washington West Supervisory Union, Harwood Union High
School, Mooretown, VT. My problem is that I cant tell the rules from the guidelines.

V95 N6 kappanmagazine.org 29
Copyright of Phi Delta Kappan is the property of Phi Delta Kappa International and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.