Attitudes of American Teachers Preparing to Become Administrators toward Teaching Creative Strategies

Climetine Clayburn, Stu Ervay, Nancy Albrecht

Department of School Leadership/Middle and Secondary Teacher Education, Emporia State University, Emporia, USA.

DOI: 10.4236/ce.2012.31004                

Abstract

This article presents findings of a study to determine attitudes of American teachers enrolled in graduate human relations and supervision and teacher evaluation courses taken as part of a program preparing them to become school administrators. They were given instruction on the New Bloom’s Taxonomy and asked to consider the Bill of Rights for the Planet as a possible catalyst for the teaching of creativity; they were then asked to provide their re-actions to these guiding research questions: 1) To what extent are currently mandated or suggested curriculums allowing the teaching of creativity in their respective grade levels or subjects? and 2) How would they assist teachers under their supervision, once becoming administrators, to structure local curriculums and lessons to include the teaching of creative solutions to issues? Sub-research questions included: 1) How would you define creativity in teaching? 2) What do you consider to be barriers to creativity? and 3) As a future school administrator, what do you anticipate you will do to enhance creativity in your building? Based on their responses to the previous mentioned prompts, it was concluded that teachers are not using creativity to a high level in their currently mandated or suggested curriculums. There was strong indication that these future administrators felt that it was part of their responsibility to make sure their teachers used creativity in the classroom. To have creativity there needs to be a foundation to build upon and the willingness of teachers to accept more than one answer for a problem.

Keywords

Creative Teaching Strategies; Administrator Training

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W. & Cruikshank, K. L. (2000). A Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston, MA (Pearson Education Group): Allyn & Bacon.
[2]	Austin, A., & Baldwin, R. (1991). ASHE ERIC Higher Education Report No.71. Faculty collaboration: Enhancing the quality of scholarship and teaching. Washington DC: University of Washington DC. School of Education and Human Development.
[3]	Boyer, E. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper and Row.
[4]	Climetine, C., Ervay, S., and Albrecht, N. (2010). Survey information.
[5]	Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculm Development.
[6]	Department of Education. (2010). A blueprint for reform. Washington DC: United States Department of Education.
[7]	Engel, S., & Randall, K. (2009). How teachers respond to children’s inquiry. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 183-202.
[8]	Leff, H., & Gordon, L. (1979). Environmental cognitive sets: A longitudinal study. Environmental Behavior, 11, 291-327. doi:10.1177/0013916579113001
[9]	Longo, C. (2010). Fostering creativity or teaching to the test? Implications of state testing on the delivery of science instruction. Clearing House, 83, 54-57. doi:10.1080/00098650903505399
[10]	McDonough, W., & Partners. (2000). The hannover principles: design for sustainability. Hanover: The World’s Fair.
[11]	Roach, C. (2010). Curriculum leadership institute e-hint. Emporia, KS: Curriculum Leadership Institute. URL (last checked September 2008). http:www.cliweb.org/Ehintstc/CI8.pdf
[12]	Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
[13]	USA Today. (2011) America’s biggest teacher and principal cheating scandal unfolds in Atlanta. 8 July 2011.