Productive Improvisation and Collective Creativity

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511997105.010

9 - Productive Improvisation and Collective Creativity

Lessons from the Dance Studio

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012

Janice E. Fournier

Edited by

R. Keith Sawyer

Show author details

Janice E. Fournier: Affiliation:
University of Washington
R. Keith Sawyer: Affiliation:
Washington University, St Louis

Book contents

Get access

Summary

In an era emphasizing accountability, standards, and coverage of the curriculum on a timetable, integrating improvisational activities in the classroom can be risky. By its nature, improvisation invites surprises and can quickly head in unexpected directions. Not knowing where such activities will lead, how can teachers ensure that they will be productive – that they will in fact help accomplish an instructional goal? This is the crux of the teaching paradox. Teachers who are expected to follow a standardized curriculum may be reluctant to experiment with activities that deviate from the book, with good reason. The skills needed to teach according to a prescribed format differ markedly from the skills needed to teach by attending to what arises in learners themselves. The latter requires joining with students in a fundamentally creative process – teachers who invite input from students must then find ways to take up their ideas and use them to chart a new, flexible path toward instructional goals. In this chapter, I draw on research from dance – specifically, how choreographers and dancers compose a dance together – to illustrate how a collective creative process can indeed be effective pedagogy. The improvisational strategies choreographers employ to ensure mutual understanding of material and independent mastery in performance can also be used in the classroom to help effectively address the learning paradox.

Type: Chapter
Information: Structure and Improvisation in Creative Teaching , pp. 184 - 206

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511997105.010 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Blom, L. A. & Chaplin, L. T. (1982). The intimate act of choreography. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Chaplin, L. T. (1976). Teaching dance improvisation creatively. Journal of Physical Education and Recreation, April.Google Scholar

Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cornelius, L. & Herrenkohl, L. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 467–498.CrossRef Google Scholar

Craft, A. (2002). Creativity and early years education: A lifewide foundation. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar

Cremin, T., Burnard, P., & Craft, A. (2006). Pedagogy and possibility thinking in the early years. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1, 108–119.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience & education. New York: Collier Books.Google Scholar

Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (Eds.) (1998). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach – advanced reflections (2nd ed.). Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Engle, R. A. & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399–484.CrossRef Google Scholar

Flower, L. & Hayes, J. R. (1994). A cognitive process theory of writing. In Ruddell, R. B., Ruddell, M. R., & Singer, H. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 928–950.Google Scholar

Fournier, J. E. (2003). Composing in dance: Thinking with minds and bodies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. (1993). The blackness of black: Color categories as situated practice. Discourse tools and reasoning: Situated cognition and technologically supported environments. November. Lucca, Italy.Google Scholar

Heath, S. B. (1999). Imaginative actuality: Learning in the arts during nonschool hours. In Fiske, E. B. (Ed.), Champions of change: The impact of the arts on learning. Washington, DC: The Arts Education Partnership, 19–34.Google Scholar

Holt, T. (1990). Thinking historically: Narrative, imagination, and understanding. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.Google Scholar

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

John-Steiner, V. (1985). Notebooks of the mind: Explorations of thinking. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar

Keller, C. H. & Keller, J. D. (1996). Thinking and acting with iron. In Chaiklin, S. and Lave, J. (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 125–143.Google Scholar

Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project based learning. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–333). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 29–63.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Paley, V. G. (1986). On listening to what the children say. Harvard Educational Review, 56(2), 122–131.CrossRef Google Scholar

Perkins, D. N. (1993). Person-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In Salomon, G. (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and cognitive implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individuals’ cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In Salomon, G. (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 111–138.Google Scholar

Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12–20.CrossRef Google Scholar

Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–115). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Scribner, S. (1997). Mind in action: A functional approach to thinking. In Tobach, E., Falmagne, R. J., Parlee, M. B., Martin, L. M., & Kapelman, A. S. (Eds.), Mind and social practice: Selected writings of Sylvia Scribner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schön, D. A. (1990). The design process. In Howard, V. A. (Ed.), Varieties of thinking. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Shahn, B. (1957). The shape of content. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar

Swados, E. (1988). Listening out loud: Becoming a composer. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Watson, G. & Konicek, R. (1990). Teaching for conceptual change: Confronting children’s experience. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(9), 680–685Google Scholar

Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. The Phi Delta Kappan, 70(9), 703–713.Google Scholar

Wolf, D., Bixby, J., Glenn, J., and Gardner, H. (1991). To use their minds well: Investigating new forms of student assessment. Review of Research in Education, 17, 31–74.Google Scholar

Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 7–44.CrossRef Google Scholar