ABSTRACT
The idea of a ‘creative curriculum’ – which has been popular in English primary schools in recent years – is closely associated with a cross-curricular approach to teaching and learning. Ofsted (2010) in their review of creative curricula in 44 primary schools suggest that many are built around ‘learning journeys’. The scope and focus of these learning journeys are mapped out centrally so that the leadership team, subject leaders and Key Stage or year group teachers can understand and appreciate the essential features of each curriculum area to be taught as well as make connections between them. Every journey begins with a ‘wow!’ event, such as a trip to York to explore how the Vikings lived. The ‘wow!’ – which in Reggio Emilia might be called a ‘provocation’ – aims to inspire children and pique their interest, so they want to know more. Outcomes from each learning journey are clear at the outset and might include a presentation to parents, an exhibition of written, painted or drawn work or a performance of some kind. Other recent primary school curricula have placed strong emphasis on ‘thinking skills’, ‘enquiry approaches’, ‘learning power’, ‘philosophy for children’, ‘creative dispositions’ or ‘habits of mind’. This suggests dissatisfaction with a compartmentalised, subject-based curriculum and its associated ‘fragmented learning’ that interrupts ‘the natural flow of activity, language and thought’ (Alexander 2010: 246). In England the policy document Excellence and Enjoyment – The Primary National Strategy (DfES 2003) gave permission to innovate by freeing schools from the constraints of the national curriculum for part of the week and exhorting them to make links between subjects in their planning, whilst the latest recommendations in Wales: Successful Futures (Donaldson 2015) proposes six cross-curricular ‘areas of learning and development’. The New Zealand government went one step further by basing its primary curriculum around five key competencies – thinking; using language, symbols and text; managing self; relating to others; participating and contributing (New Zealand Ministry of Education 2007). To those of us who were teaching in primary schools during the 1980s, this trend has a curious sense of déjà vu about it. We were trained to plan from ‘topic webs’ in which the various components of the primary curriculum were subsumed under broad themes and we were encouraged to follow individual children’s interests as far as
59 O
possible within the constraints of class size. The backlash against this liberal, developmental approach to the primary curriculum deriving from the Piagetian ideas in the Plowden Report (Central Advisory Council for Education 1967) was sudden and devastating. The publication of a statutory, subject-based national curriculum (DES 1987) was followed by a radical critique of primary pedagogy by the ‘three wise men’ (Alexander et al. 1992) in which they suggested that cross-curricular topic work risked diluting children’s understanding of important concept areas and compromising their literacy and numeracy skills in favour of ‘contrived’ links to broad themes. An increasing focus on teachers’ subject knowledge and children’s standards of attainment through the 1990s virtually drove topic work to extinction in English primary schools. Of course, its re-emergence after 2003 was set against a very different cultural and legal background from the 1980s: schools still had to ‘deliver’ the national curriculum, necessitating regular audits of curriculum coverage, and children’s literacy and numeracy skills continue to be tested and reported upon nationally. The outcome of this is that, in many primary schools, English and mathematics are considered too ‘important’ to be fully integrated into the cross-curricular mix, retaining their special status of ‘morning subjects’. However, science – although in theory still a ‘core’ subject of the National Curriculum – is not so privileged, particularly since the abandonment of national testing at the end of primary school in 2010. As in the 1980s, science tends to be subsumed within topic work, which, whilst it offers the creative advantages of cross-curricularity, risks ‘skating over’ some of the more challenging conceptual content. There are however signs in England that this trend may be reversing since the re-introduction of a more subject-focused curriculum in 2014. A recent Confederation of British Industry report (2015) stated that there is some discrete science being taught, albeit less than during the 1990s, when it had a clear curriculum status as a ‘core subject’ and its own designated space in the timetable. This is not to suggest that combining with aspects of the curriculum considered more naturally ‘creative’ such as art and design, English, drama and music cannot enhance learning in science. It is one of the characteristics of creative teachers that they make links between ‘previously unrelated ideas’ (Koestler 1964) and can rethink subject content to make it more innovative and engaging for children. But it is not crosscurricularity per se that makes science teaching creative; it is perfectly possible to teach a scientific concept creatively whilst remaining firmly within subject boundaries. For example, in teaching a unit of work entitled Gases all around us to pupils aged 9-11 at Shoscombe Primary School, Somerset, teacher David Young surprised the class by setting up a series of ‘engage activities’ on their tables whilst they were out at break. These consisted of a candle burning; a series of plastic cups containing different numbers of marbles; and pairs of inflated and deflated balls. Whilst there were question cards with the activities – e.g. ‘Watch the candle as it burns, what do you notice? Look at how the marbles are arranged, shake them, what is happening? Squeeze the two rugby balls, what can you say?’ – David gave no vocal instructions. Initially bemused, groups of pupils soon began interacting with the exhibits and discussing their ideas. This unexpected start to the lesson – out of the normal routine – together with an invitation to look at everyday phenomena differently, provided the ‘hook’ needed to engage children’s enthusiasm in a new scientific topic. It was a creative piece of teaching without needing to make links with other curriculum areas. However, what this episode arguably lacked was a meaningful context. Why were children looking at marbles in a plastic cup, other than as a
pedagogical device to introduce the notion of particle motion in gases? The main reason for linking science to other subjects is to contextualise children’s learning and give it a purpose which makes sense to the children and helps them to relate scientific learning to their everyday lives. Setting learning experiences in a meaningful, everyday context can also support children’s creativity in science (New Zealand Ministry of Education 1999); for example the teaching of magnetism within the context of designing and making a magnetic board game can lead children to explore the possibilities of what can be done with magnets more widely than, say, an investigation to find out which materials magnetism can pass through. This links with the notions of ‘diversive exploration’ (Moyles 1989) and ‘possibility thinking’ (Craft 2000) introduced in Chapter 3, suggesting that whilst it is possible to teach creatively without making cross-curricular links, in order to teach for creativity it may be more effective to encourage activities across broader contexts. This suggests a further justification for cross-curricular science, for in order to promote their creativity, science learning needs to engage children’s emotions – it has to ‘feel good’ (Kelly and Stead 2013). In a survey of schools adopting a thematic approach to the curriculum, Ofsted (2008) report a number of benefits to children’s social and emotional development. There is even a suggestion that curriculum integration – particularly between science and mathematics – may be associated with higher achievement (Hurley 2001). So it seems that the more we link science with other subject areas, the greater the potential for enhancing children’s creativity, emotional well-being and scientific understanding. It is important however to plan with the ‘big scientific picture’ in mind (Shepardson 1997) to ensure that the concepts don’t get lost in the context, and we need to guide children’s creative outcomes to ensure that they include scientific – not just artistic – creativity. To use the example above, a beautifully designed magnetic board game might demonstrate children’s creativity in the choice and use of materials, colours and media, yet employ a relatively pedestrian use of magnets to move pieces around the board. Conversely, a game with less obvious aesthetic qualities and creativity in design might exemplify a more diverse exploration of the possibilities of magnets attracting and repelling each other, ‘flipping’ over or ‘hovering’. However, this is not to say that science does not itself have aesthetic qualities which may be incorporated in children’s creativity, as we shall explore in the next section.
