Reading and Creativity.

A thought in my mind I would like to share: Is Reading Creative?

A reflection on past thoughts.

2009-20-04Creative Education.

Overcoming GTDSBS syndrome and replacing it with a valued process.1. Tony Hawks, “Round Ireland with a Fridge.”

G.T.D.S.B.S syndrome, Freud, Dreams and the Unconscious, 1896. On the Importance of Creativity

By Ashfaq Ishaq.

Creativity is a quintessential attribute of human beings. When combined with our ability to record and benefit from accumulated knowledge, it makes us the highest-order species on the planet. People throughout history have envisioned their surroundings in new and instructive ways, producing ideas, inventions and works of art that have radically changed life and added to our understanding of the planet and its place in the universe.Creativity: Our Definition28. Defining a process that covers such a wide range of activities and personal styles is inherently difficult. Ours is a sipulative definition, but it takes account of what we understand about the nature of creative processes and of the ways in which key words are used in different contexts. It is also in a sense an indicative definition in that it points to features of creative processes that we want to encourage for educational purposes. Our starting point is to recognise four characteristics of creative processes. First, They always involve thinking or behaving imaginatively. Second, overall this imaginative activity is purposeful: that is, it is directed to achieving an objective. Third, these processes must generate something original. Fourth, the outcome must be of value in relation to the objective.

We therefore define creativity as:

Imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are both original andof value.

But a growing concern:

“Are we are educating people out of their creative potential? Can we see through our present education system and understand that the purpose and structures on which it was originally built (not so long ago) have all deeply changed?”

Diminishing creativityWe humans have not yet achieved our full creative potential, however, primarily because every child’s creativity is not properly nurtured. The critical role of imagination, discovery and creativity in a child’s education is only beginning to come to light, and even within the educational community, many still do not appreciate or realize its vital importance.

Is Reading a creative process?

Research and reading:

A personal reflection/critique of the thought:

When I give serious thought to the question is reading a creative process, two conflicting lines of enquiry

form in my mind: One. Quite simply, no. But this is not from my personal experience as a reader, but

from my experience as a student teacher and then developing teacher.

The simple view is not, in my opinion, a creative framework. The simple view in my current thoughts

and experiences of delivering it revolve around those two key principles: learning to decode words, a

behaviourist pedagogical experience, and comprehension, the interpretation of words, sentences and

discourse. In the curriculum: Reading Strategies: Pupils should be taught to read with fluency, accuracy,

understanding and enjoyment.’’ (QCA, 2006b, p. 2) This recent editing of the reading strategies

statement perhaps further illustrates a more ‘behaviourist’ attitude towards reading as a process as

opposed to a creative one. My evidence for this suggestion being the removal of the guideline, ‘to

develop an understanding of what they are reading’, which is more in line with explorative learning

pedagogies requiring the child through their own thoughts and experiences to make sense of the world

around them.

As a young developing teacher, I reflect on viewing the teaching of reading as very much a behaviourist

experience. This directly teaches the children sounds, decoding skills, guided approaches to

comprehension. With the child’s progression ultimately being assessed again in line with the

behaviourist ethos, ‘have you learnt these behaviours, these phonemes, these sight words, these ways

of engaging with the text that I have modelled to you?

Success and failure often seems to be decided upon through numerical data and not language. “Child

A’s attainment is high, they have learnt 12, 27, 45 phomemes, sights words, tricky words, high

frequency words… as opposed to, Child A’s attainment is high, when reading….they explored their idea

that…. Such an identification of success would reflect that all decoding skills were in place for the child

to do this in the first place, otherwise they would not be able to have decoded the text, but more than

that they are engaged and communicating an understanding of the text.

Until quite recently I viewed the teaching of reading, and therefore the way to success as “The Simple

View” you teach the sounds and decoding skills, then model and support inference building skills. The

behaviouristic view, suiting the needs of our curriculum and ways in which attainment is measured.

My recent experiences in one school would further suggest this is not an isolated thought.

My stance at the moment continued, an alternative view:

I personally feel that a focus by political powers on the termed, “Phonic War” (debates between

synthetic and whole word phonic teaching) have in fact stifled in some cases creative, innovative and

nurturing approaches towards reading, a love for reading and the development of young children

identifying themselves as readers. This leaves, in its place a polarized set of two camps, synthetic

phonics verses, analytical phonics, no middle ground, but both churning out data, upon data upon data,

relating to sight word uptake rates and phoneme sequential lists. There is seemingly little attention or

ground for intrinsic motivation, for development of self identity, or learner identity, issues explored in the

research of such old dogs like Smith and Clay.

But,

Christina Clark and Kate Rumblod writing in, The National Literacy Trust Paper on Reading for

Pleasure, November 2006, make the point that although the review recommended that children are

taught synthetic phonics at the first instance, the teaching and development of learning experiences

should be firmly placed within a language –rich framework that fosters positive attitudes towards reading

and a love of books. Unfortunately this context was lost in the subsequent press coverage.

Clark and Rumbold continue to point out that through their paper it is important that they pressure policy

makers to promote reading motivation, creativity and pleasure. Over the past two years, the most

important discovery made in the case study was the impact of reading for pleasure.

When I look back on my recent experiences as a reader, personal to me and not in any teaching terms,

and return to the question, is reading a creative process? I now quite simply answer,’ Yes’.

Three key texts that I would draw on for this parallel confliction of thoughts are these, in no

specific order: The Box of Delights, John Masefiled, A Clockwork orange, Anthony Burgess and

The Collector, John Fowles.

And this piece of text:

John Fowles. The Collector.1963

The situation is seen first from the collector’s point of view. Half way through the novel, you return to the

beginning of the situation as, the creators, viewpoint is told. Through these two separate accounts of the

situation, my thoughts start trying to comprehend in terms of plot, timescale, space and the internal

monologues of the collector and creator, what concept was beginning to emerge. One concept being

that the collector sees himself in no ill light, just simply setting up a situation through which the issues of

class and tastes, which inhibit love can be broken down. The other being that the creator desperate for

her freedom tries to understand the collector but jeopardises her own life through her utter contempt of

him and desire to outwit his anti-life stance and mind games. Novel concepts and interpretations which

are personal to me, and maybe others, have developed by engagement with the text and a subsequent

creative dialogue within my head while I read.

So is reading a process that stimulates creative thought, but not creative in itself?

A Clockwork Orange. Anthony Burgess.

The book, narrated by Alex, contains many words in a slang argot which Burgess invented for the book,

called Nadsat. It is a mix of modified Slavic words, rhyming slang, derived Russian (like "baboochka"),

and words invented by Burgess himself. For instance, these terms have the following meanings in

Russian - 'droog' means 'friend' ; 'korova' means 'cow'; 'golova' (gulliver) means 'head'; 'malchick' or

'malchickiwick' means 'boy'; 'soomka' means 'sack' or 'bag'; 'Bog' means 'God'; 'khorosho' (horrorshow)

means 'good', 'prestoopnick' means 'criminal'; 'rooka' is 'hand', 'cal' is 'crap', 'veck' ('chelloveck') is 'man'

or 'guy'; 'litso' is 'face'; 'malenky' is 'little'; and so on. One of Alex's doctors explains the language to a

colleague as "Odd bits of old rhyming slang; a bit of gypsy talk, too. But most of the roots are Slav

propaganda. Subliminal penetration." Some words are not derived from anything, but merely easy to

guess, e.g. 'in-out, in-out' or 'the old in-out' means sexual intercourse. 'Cutter', however, means money,

because 'cutter' rhymes with 'bread-and-butter'; this is rhyming slang, which is intended to be

impenetrable to outsiders (especially eavesdropping policemen). In the first edition of the book, no key

was provided, and the reader was left to interpret the meaning from the context. In his appendix to the

restored edition, Burgess explained that the slang would keep the book from seeming dated, and served

to muffle "the raw response of pornography" from the acts of violence. Furthermore, in a novel where a

form of brainwashing plays a role, the narrative itself brainwashes the reader into understanding Nadsat.

Droogism refers to the commission of a crime for the sole sake of committing a crime, without material

gain or benefit; robbery and kidnapping with the intent to demand ransom, for example, do not qualify as

droogisms, as they are committed with the intention of some sort of material benefit for the perpetrator.

The term "ultraviolence", referring to excessive and/or unjustified violence, was coined by Burgess in the

book, which includes the phrase "do the ultra-violent". The term's association with aesthetic violence

has led to its use in the media. (Edited from Wikipedia and foreword in the book.)

When first reading this book I remember the strange sense of trying to learn to read again, decoding

alone not making any sense, but “novel conception” becoming the main cognitive drive in my mind, you

needed to have some form of creativity, ability to think creatively to even just decode the text, straight

from page 1 and its first few lines,

“What’s going to be then, eh?”

“There was me, that is Alex, and my three droogs, that is Pete, Georgie, and Dim…we sat in the Korova

Milkbar making up our rassoodocks what to do with the vening, a flip dark chill winter bastard though

dry. The Korova Milkbar was a milk-plus mesto, and you may, O brothers, have forgotten what mestos

were like, things changing so skorry these days…”

Is the writing developing a creative thought process, as once more the reader simply decodes

and infers meaning?

I personally do want to get to a place where I think, yes reading is genuinely a creative process

within its own right, standing on its own. As argued by

:

I turn to children’s literature:

The Box of delights. John Masefield.

As an older child my reading skills were poor, so this was a really complex text for me to read. I

desperately wanted to read the novel after watching the tale told through the BBC’s dramatisation, but

with such poor reading skills and self identity inhibiting any motivation to stick with the text. TV remained

the main source of my literate world. Returning to this book as an adult though was completely different.

I became completely absorbed in the tale and its many sub plots, to the point where I now frequently

search second hand bookshops for the earliest edition I can find. At no point as an adult, while reading

the text, did I realise how the tale was going to end. I was completely emerged in a world I created

within my own thoughts, mind and imagination. The world I created was not original because I had the

text in front of me. How could it be original as I m reading someone else’s work? However, I could

argue that it was original in the sense of my own creative definition, original to me and my experiences

of literature. A creative and personal process of value.

Are we now getting really close to a definition of creativity?

I remain confused I suppose, but in a comforting way. While I long for a clear understanding and

acknowledgement that reading in its own right is a creative process, I have some hang ups and niggling

ideas.

Within my own practice, I see reading as essentially creative, and strive to deliver many creative

experiences in which book, text, environment, pupil voice and language all blur and intermingle on a

journey towards a creative learning experience.

The simple view and its leading behaviouristic pedagogies, in my opinion, miss key concepts highlighted in the research and case studies of others such as Cathrine Compton-Lilly: Identity, childhood culture, and literacy learning. In this case study it is demonstrated how teachers can successfully utilise media and cultural resources that lie outside the traditional walls of school to create learning experiences that are uniquely responsive to individual students. This essentially, gets the children to engage not only with their pupil voice but also with their childhood and media culture.Mcarthey and Moje, 2002 discuss that power plays a role in how reading identities get enacted and how children position themselves, their personal histories, struggles and successes all contributing to their reading competence. By developing their pupil voice, creating learning experiences that are uniquely responsive to individual students.

Or perhaps they don’t miss them, these shared ideals never really got aired. Either way we need

to decide for ourselves as a school on the view we adopt and define, is reading within its own

right going to be viewed as a creative process here at Gearies Infants?

One last thought:

Reviewing school statistics, a pattern begins to emerge, sample significant, 270 children, three year comparisons, high achievement in creative development, reflects high achievement across all areas of learning. Looking at where this journey begins and any possible statistical evidence to support by reflections, discovered:

2008 creative development score 92% 6+ All areas of Learning 56% 6+ 12 % higher than national average.2009 creative development 94% 6+ All areas of Learning 62 % 18% + Redbridge average.

2007 Creative development 69% 6+ All areas of learning 41%, just 2 % higher than national average

Creative development within the early years seems, in our school, to stimulate successful attainment

across all areas of learning. If we are judging reading as not being a creative process, and creativity is

so essential to the role of success and high attainment, how do we ensure that the children get to

interact with creative learning within their literature experiences?