Is creativity nurtured in Finnish classrooms?

To what degree do cultures value and nurture creativity? Are some cultures more creative than others? Or, do they simply express their creativity in different ways? Do classroom experiences, specifically those for young children, affect their later creativity?

In this article, the authors address these questions by intertwining personal reflective narratives from two native Finns with a reflective narrative from a U.S. teacher-educator and researcher in the field of creativity, and with evidence from the literature. The two Finnish authors are primary teachers and researchers. The first author, currently a full-time doctoral student, reflects upon her own schooling in the 1970s and 1980s as it relates to research on creativity. The third author, a doctoral student and early childhood teacher, reflects on her experiences teaching young children in the 1990s. The second author speaks from her perspectives as a visiting lecturer in Finland instructing preservice and inservice Finnish teachers on creative classroom strategies.

These various snapshots of creativity can only address the questions at the beginning of this article in a limited way, and, of course, they do not speak for all Finnish schools. The objective here is not to duplicate research on the cross-cultural comparability of creativity as measured on tests (Cramond & Urban, 1995; Cramond & Uusikyla, 1994), but rather to address the opening questions through the authors' rich memories.

What Is the Status of Creativity in Finland?

The Finnish researcher Hagglund (1984) defines creativity as a new combination of ideas, thoughts, and images. The new combination is more than the sum of its parts; it has originality and the identifiable mark of its creator. This definition has become part of a continuing national debate about the concept of creativity.

Creativity has been mentioned prominently in Finland's national curriculum for nearly 30 years. Still, some Finnish educators and policymakers believe many myths about creativity, such as that creativity belongs only to arts, it permits children to do whatever they want, it has no goals, it causes mess and disruption, and it takes time away from teaching the basic skills. Many teachers want to delegate this "creative disruption" to after-school or extracurricular activities. Some parents also view creativity as a waste of time, or they consider it as only play. They appear to believe that there is no room for creativity in the curriculum. Despite these negative views of creativity, some teachers have pursued creative class activities and goals for years. Those progressive teachers, with their interesting classes and projects, have been very popular among children and progressive parents.

Creativity assumes many different forms. A product or process that would be considered creative by some people may not be seen by others to be creative at all. Recently, two researchers (Laitila & Vaisanen, 1998) interviewed Finnish teachers and students about creativity. They found that teachers believed creativity meant flexibility in social situations, as well as the ability to find new solutions and use old knowledge in new ways. According to these teachers, creativity includes hard work, humor, and imagination. It is inborn, they say, but it is possible to develop and support it.

The following description of Finnish schools in the 1970s and 1980s, given by the first author, offers one view of how creativity is nurtured in Finnish schools.

The School System in Finland

When I went to school in the 1970s, I did not know how many years of study I had ahead of me. I spent the first 6 years in lower comprehensive school (elementary school). During those six years, one teacher taught all the subjects. In lower comprehensive school everybody studied math, the Finnish language, a foreign language (usually English, starting in the 3rd grade), history, biology, geography, physical education, handicrafts, music, and art. Then, we began the three years of upper stages (junior high school), where study subjects were the same as in the lower stages, except for the addition of physics, chemistry, a second foreign language, and home economics. In the upper stages, teachers taught in their special areas.

After comprehensive school, I had to choose between senior secondary school (high school) for 3 years or following my creative dreams and attending a vocational school for textile design. I chose the latter, but after a few years I decided to get my certificate of matriculation and a university education. So I let my creative dreams go, a decision that was (at least when I look back) influenced by family and society values.

Every student used to have the same curriculum; in recent years, however, new laws have enabled some schools to use individualized curricula or even have ungraded classes. In the upper stages, students can choose from among such electives as music or art. Other recent changes have included a decentralization of decision making from the government into the schools and rural districts.

As a result of these changes in school laws, the number of schools in Finland that specialize in a particular area, similar to the magnet school concept in the U.S., has increased. Of such special schools in Finland, 38 percent are art schools, 32 percent specialize in sports, and 14 percent in science; other students attend schools with international, language, and other emphases (Tirri, 1997). Specialization may range from simply having one extra class in a subject to establishing an entire curriculum on a key subject. Parents can choose a special school for their children based upon the special programs. Getting into those schools is hard, however, and the selection criteria vary. It is interesting to note that none of the schools chose to specialize in creativity, although nothing precluded such a choice.

Student Narrative: Experiences With Creativity in Schools

In my school days in the '70s and early '80s, everyone had the same learning goals. There was truly no room to be creative. Goals were mainly academic, and few exceptions were allowed. The teacher's purpose was to help everyone to achieve those goals. Mainly, we studied facts from the study books. Teaching and learning were teacher-oriented. The teacher knew what we had to learn.

All together, I learned a lot. Some of what I learned is not valid anymore, or can be found easily in books or on the Internet. Surely, however, I learned many things that teachers who use creative exercises won't have time to teach anymore.

I decided to use Torrance's Manifesto for Children as a framework for my remembrances (Torrance, 1983, see Table 1). It helped me to conceptualize and organize my experiences in terms of creative development. Back in the '70s, creativity in schools was limited to art classes. Even in those classes, creativity was sometimes limited. The art teacher who taught me from 3rd until 6th grade used to draw models on the blackboard, and every student had to draw models like hers. I could not come up with my own ideas. Those classes were boring. My parents were my salvation. They helped me to appreciate nature, showed me secrets of the arts and music, and let me express myself in so many different ways. My art teacher in the upper stages of comprehensive school was an artist and a good mentor. I remember how she created 32 artists out of a class of skeptical teenagers. She gave us freedom, positive feedback, and endless encouragement. On the other hand, we had to work hard. She expected and demanded a lot, but we realized that she did it for our own good. She never offered one model or idea to which we were supposed to refer.

I remember one time when one of my original ideas was accepted, in 8th-grade typing class. I found that the standard typing system did not suit my short fingers, and so I created my own system. By changing the placement of certain fingers, and moving my fingers differently on the keyboard, I could type much faster. At first the teacher was reluctant to allow me to type like that, because he had placed particular emphasis on using the "right" system. Finally, he stopped trying to change my way, and I still use my own typing technique.

When I was in school everything was evaluated - many times, even in front of the whole class. How could I take a risk and do something creative when I knew that, whether I succeeded or not, my product would be evaluated in front of my peers? Those horrible days are almost over. Finnish teachers now prefer to give feedback either in written form or privately. By doing so, teachers make strides toward creating safe and supportive classroom environments in which children can approach their creativity. Rogers (1954/1991) proposed that children need psychological safety in order to be creative. Children should feel accepted and supported.

Unfortunately, schools can extinguish children's innate interest and curiosity. Yet, there always have been some individual teachers who have noticed creative students, believed in their abilities, and cared about providing for them. These teachers show they care by giving special work and challenges (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).

Now, when working as a teacher, I try to remember my own school days. I want to give students choices to increase their creativity and motivation. It also is important to provide the basic elements with which to work creatively, as well as stimuli that awaken their imaginations. Creativity also increases students' commitment to their work. A teacher's attitude can make quite a difference.

The third author adds her perspective in the following reflection on her current experiences teaching young children.

Teacher Narrative: A Look at Creativity in Finnish Schools Today

The primary school where I am working right now is a part of the Department of Teacher Education in Hameenlinna, which prepares primary teachers. The main strengths of this program are the research on instruction of different learners (especially gifted children) and on teachers' professional development, visual arts projects, multimedia, and computer science applications.

The school emphasizes sociability, creativity, and individual responsibility, as well as a sense of responsibility for the environment and an appreciation for hard work. The school provides a learning environment in which the child can, in accordance with his own individual qualifications and needs, acquire necessary knowledge and skills.

The main interest areas of Hameenlinna primary school are individualized instruction, environmental education, and learner-centered lessons. In addition, the school emphasizes:

* Active learning

* Development of information acquisition and processing skills

* New thought processes 

* Strengthened creativity

* Problem solving 

* Cooperation

* Computer-based teaching.

This primary school specializes in teaching children with speech, writing, or other learning disabilities, as well as teaching gifted children. The school offers special classes in music, gymnastics, arts, and language; it has a variety of workshops and clubs. Students have the option of choosing at what age to begin school and which second foreign language to study.

In Hameenlinna primary school, teachers take into account an individual learner's qualifications and needs, in accordance with current research. Modern classrooms and educational equipment help make this possible. We aspire to an open curriculum that allows learners to choose how they work - the rate at which they learn, content, goals, and whether to work cooperatively or individually. Despite this level of progress, it is clear that changing people's attitudes takes time. Too much time is still spent on routines, control, learning from books, and repetition.

Our curriculum emphasizes visual art as a construction of self. The main goal is to find a style of personal expression, to make full use of imagination, and to sharpen one's senses. Learning proceeds along a three-staged process:

* The learner gets accustomed to new materials and techniques; products are not essential

* The learner uses new methods and materials in an individual work

* The learner applies methods and materials in another project that integrates other subjects such as history, language, drama, and environmental education.

The whole process continues for a few weeks so that students can see their own progress. There are four central areas in the art curriculum: drawing and painting, graphics, design and construction, and media.

I started as a primary school teacher with my new class in the autumn of 1998, and I will teach the learners for six years. I emphasize visual art, media, and creativity. Parents get information about the curriculum in advance, and they can choose the class where their children go. I could have tested the learners, but I did not find a convenient test for this purpose. How can you test 7-year-olds' motivation and creativity? All children are motivated, eager, and curious when they begin school. According to Amabile (1989), any normal human being is capable of producing creative work in some area, at some time. Parents and teachers, through careful observation, are the best experts of children's creativity. Tests give only supplementary information.

When first meeting the parents, I explain what I mean by creativity and individualization. I point out that different ways of approaching tasks can be equally valid. I emphasize that parents should provide a private place and some materials for creative work, and that they should set aside a few minutes each day for listening to children's feelings and experiences. Children need a variety of possibilities from which to choose. At the beginning of the school year, I spend a lot of time with parents, and half my work is done if I can develop a sense of cooperation and trust!

I ask learners and parents questions to find out what the child's own vision is for the future, and what his strengths and interests are, using Amabile's research (1989). I ask parents: How has your child surprised you? In what ways is your child different from other children you know? What does your child enjoy doing? In what ways does your child show creativity? What is your vision of your child as an adult? I had never before "dared" to ask parents these types of questions. I was very surprised that parents were so eager and ready to tell me about their children's creativity. based on parents' answers, I give children materials that help them develop their interests. Most of the children love painting, drama, building the sets for plays, drawing comic strips, and exploring the environment.

The first few weeks of the school year are crucial. The students are watching and listening very closely. After doing some creative work, a queue of children forms. They ask, "Is this ready? Is this good? Is this right?" I ask them to think of the goal, think if they have done their best, and to answer if they themselves are satisfied. Gradually, they realize that they are working for themselves, not for me. At first, learners can get confused when they see that they have different exercises, books, and homework. After discussions, however, they understand and accept the situation.

Crucial moments occur when learners tell exceptional stories, paint unusual pictures, or have astonishing or odd ideas. If you just pass over those events, students soon realize that their ideas or thoughts are not considered acceptable.

In my art classes, materials include many kinds of pictures: from books, works of art, cinema, video, and advertisements. I try to have my students realize that an artist is always behind the work. We look at pictures of different birds, fish, and flowers, so that learners understand the great variety of living things in the world. We connect the subjects to colors, unusual dreams, or fairy tales.

I also use such techniques as brainstorming, metaphorical thinking, synectics, and drama to enrich creativity. Learners find and invent different uses for objects, think "What happens if . . .," find common features between two different things, create strategies and rules for new games, and so on. I also have found the Philosophy for Children program (Lipman & Sharp, 1980) useful for developing learners' thinking. As a teacher, I have to take into consideration the opinions of parents and children. Most important, however, I have to think about my own actions as a creative teacher.

What Should Educators Consider?

It is much easier to identify creativity when teachers themselves are creative. Unfortunately, creative teachers and students do not always get support. Although big classes, lack of resources, and competition among schools are obstacles to nourishing creativity in Finland's schools, creative teachers find ways to offer a safe place to work, one that offers many different and stimulating materials. They support and praise children and avoid excessive evaluation. Good teachers also model creativity by talking about the creative process and sharing their own creative products with children. It is important to value creative products, as well as the creative process (Piirto, 1992).

Learners should have some free time to choose activities according to their interests and needs. They can choose, for example, to read a play, draw, or solve math problems. Some of the learners may begin unsure of themselves, but will gradually get used to having this kind of independence.

Csikszentmihalyi (1996) identified seven elements of the social environment that support creativity: education, expectations, resources, recognition, hope, opportunities, and rewards. Education and resources are not the major problems in Finnish schools. Education is readily available to everyone, and schools have enough resources to support creativity.

More troubling is the fact that rewards and expectations are more closely connected to academic goals than goals are related to creativity. Teachers can arrange a good learning environment, but it might not be suitable for everyone. We can create possibilities, but we cannot ensure learning. Children's motivation and creativity can be thwarted if evaluation, reward, and competition are misused, or if their choices are too restricted (Amabile, 1989). Creative work does not have stable evaluation criteria, which makes it harder to judge. Therefore, it is important for Finnish teachers to give enough individual space and opportunities for students to be creative, to provide recognition to those who succeed in being creative, and to offer hope for those who did not succeed.

In order to support children's creative achievements and goals, Finnish teachers need more creativity training, of which there has been little to date. Some educators have taken short courses during semester breaks or the summers. Most of these courses, however, provide specific instruction on how to nurture creativity in specific subjects. Education departments do not offer regular classes related to the general understanding of creativity. The following narrative provides observations from a teacher's summer course in creativity, as seen through the eyes of an American instructor.

The Teacher-Trainer Narrative: Observations of Creativity in Finnish Teachers

As a university instructor of creativity courses, I am always delighted by the variety of creative expression that my students display. My creativity classes have attracted graduate students not only from teacher education, but also from counseling, instructional technology, the arts, business, landscape architecture, mathematics, psychology, and the sciences. One student, a mathematician, performed magic tricks. Most of the students are wondrous in their productive expressions within their respective fields. My students continue to astound me with their diverse, and sometimes unexpected, creative strategies and products.

When I was invited to Finland to teach a creativity course to inservice and preservice teachers, I was excited about the adventure of teaching in a foreign country, and about the chance to share in creative expressions. I was surprised when more than one native Finn warned me that I should not expect the same level of exuberance and freedom of expression that I had come to enjoy in my U.S. classes. The Finnish temperament is shy and reticent, I was told. Because the Finnish higher education system is based on tradition and lecture, students are accustomed to receptive, rather than productive, learning.

I should have known better than to believe such generalizations. My own research with Finns and Germans (Cramond & Urban, 1995; Cramond & Uusikyla, 1994) had corroborated what other cross-cultural research on creativity had found: creative expression differs in kind, rather than magnitude, in different cultures. Even so, I knew that I would only have a couple of weeks to work with the students. I was concerned about whether I would have enough time to develop the rapport and trust necessary for students to feel comfortable with a very different instructional style, delivered in a foreign language.

The first day of class I realized how much of a challenge lay before me. Although I had planned in advance and brought as many materials as I could reasonably carry, I had been forced to plan without knowing anything about the students, the setting, or the available resources. In addition, the books that I had requested for the class had not arrived from the U.S. publisher, and many of the students were only minimally proficient in English.

Therefore, I faced having to teach sophisticated theory to students who did not have the required background or reading materials, and who could neither be expected to gain much from lectures delivered in English nor participate much in English discussions. To complicate matters, I spoke no Finnish. Furthermore, if the students were as reticent as I had been told, I could not expect that participatory activities would be very effective, either. I knew that I would have to use all the creativity I could muster to pull this one off. I recalled Torrance's operational definition of creativity: "When a person has no learned or practiced solution to a problem, some degree of creativity is required" (1988, p. 57).

I realized that I had to do what creative teachers do all of the time, and what I had always done, to a lesser degree: I would have to be open to the needs, abilities, and interests of the diverse group of people before me; and I would have to be willing to redo my plans each day, according to the students' level of trust and openness.

The first day of class I explained briefly some of the major theories of creativity, then asked the students what they thought. Silence and apparent consternation greeted me. I decided to take a break and give the students time to compose their responses in English. One student expressed concern that I must think them stupid for not answering. I reassured her that I was sympathetic to the difficulty of responding in another language. She explained that it was not just the language, but that they were not accustomed to being asked what they think about a theory. If I had asked them to identify or restate the theories, they would not have had the same difficulty.

I found that once the students got accustomed to what they called the "American style" of teaching, they accepted it with enthusiasm. Like Helena with the primary students, I realized that these students needed encouragement, patience, respect, and freedom to make some choices about what and how they learned. I began incorporating more and more creative activities in the class, but I gave the students the option to join in - to the degree that they felt comfortable. I accepted and encouraged their responses in class and in their journals, focusing on the ideas expressed, rather than on the form. The students were able to choose from a menu of projects, and whether they wanted to work alone or with a group.

On the last day of class, the raucous laughter of my creativity class echoed through the staid halls of the school. Two of the students had concocted an activity that demonstrated a clever combination of problem-solving and creative dramatics; the activity had the whole class going on an imaginary safari, climbing over desks, and howling in delight. As I watched the entire class participate, becoming childlike and losing self-consciousness, I realized that creativity resides in everyone, regardless of age or culture, and often is just waiting for the opportunity and encouragement to come forth.

What Is Next?

Teacher education departments need students who are willing to use their own creativity, bear uncertainty, and take risks. Some teachers only pay lip service to creativity. Professors and teachers should use and apply creative teaching methods themselves. It is hard, and it will take time to make adjustments, but it is worth the effort and risk.

Many of the same challenges that Finnish teachers face in incorporating creativity into the classroom are universal. Unfortunately, progress is slow, especially when it is a question of valuing creativity. There is still some resistance among teachers, parents, and other decision-makers; their main concern is still academic learning.

Many teachers face a dilemma: what must be left behind in order to add creative strategies to the curriculum? Perhaps the best answer is to infuse creative thinking skills, like critical thinking skills, into the curriculum. By using creative teaching strategies themselves, teachers will model creativity. Such strategies not only can be a more efficient use of class time, but also can provide a more effective way to teach both creative thinking and content. For example, when one teacher taught science to her 4th-graders, she wanted them to learn about the conditions on other planets and why life forms, as we know them, are unlikely to exist there. Rather than have students memorize these conditions, the teacher had them work in groups to create a viable life form for each planet. They labeled the unique body parts and what condition(s) led to their development, such as a thick skin and a short and muscular build, high temperatures, strong gravitational pull, etc. To get ideas, the class examined how creatures on earth have adapted to their environments. The children enjoyed this activity immensely, and they learned a great deal.

Whatever the challenges, creativity can and should be nurtured in every classroom. It is less a question of cultural differences than of individual teacher differences and priorities. It is less a question of time and knowledge than of values. Teachers who value creativity will find ways to identify and support it. Cultures that wish to remain competitive will value and support the development of their most valuable resource - the creativity of their future leaders.

Table 1

Torrance's Manifesto for Children

1. Don't be afraid to fall in love with something and to pursue it with intensity.

2. Know, understand, take pride in, practice, develop, exploit, and enjoy your greatest strengths.

3. Learn to free yourself from the expectations of others, and to walk away from the games they impose on you. Free yourself to play your own game.

4. Find a great teacher or mentor who will help you.

5. Don't waste energy trying to be well-rounded.

6. Do what you love and can do well.

7. Learn the skills of interdependence.

From Torrance, E. P. (1983). The importance of falling in love with something. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 8(2), 72-78. Copyright 1983 by Henderson, Presbury, and Torrance. Reprinted with the permission of the author.

Note: Special thanks to Dr. Kari Uusikyla, who works at the University of Helsinki, for promoting creativity in Finnish schools and universities. His creativity research has started an important discussion about the significance of emphasizing creativity in schools. In addition, he has given many teachers knowledge and ideas to help them individualize and differentiate their curriculums.

References

Amabile, T. (1989). Growing up creative: Nurturing a lifetime of creativity. New York: Crown.

Cramond, B., & Urban, K. (1995, November). How well do tests of divergent thinking measure creativity? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association for Gifted Children, Tampa, FL.

Cramond, B., & Uusikyla, K. (1994). Are expressions of creativity culturally dependent? Gifted and Talented International, 9(1), 8-10.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins.

Hagglund, T-B. (1984). Luovuus psykoanalyyttisen tutkimuksen valossa. In R. Haavikko & J-E. Ruth (Eds.), Luovuuden ulottuvuudet (pp. 123-146). Espoo: Weilin + Goos. [Creativity in the light of psychoanalytical research].

Laitila, S., & Vaisanen, T. (1998). Luovuuden kiinniotto. Opettajien nakokulmia luovuuden tunnistamiseen ja tukemiseen. Tampereen yliopisto. Hameenlinnan toimipaikka. [Catching the creativity. Teachers' perspectives into identifying and supporting creativity].

Lipman, M., & Sharp, A.M. (1980). Philosophy in the classroom (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Piirto, J. (1992). Understanding those who create. Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Press.

Rogers, C. (1991). Toward a theory of creativity. In A. Rothenberg & C. Hausman (Eds.), The creativity question (pp. 296-305). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. (Original work published 1954).

Tirri, K. (1997). How Finland meets the needs of gifted and talented pupils. High Ability Studies, 8(2), 213-222.

Torrance, E. P. (1983). The importance of falling in love with something. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 8(2), 72-78.

Torrance, E. P. (1988). Creativity as manifest in testing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 43-75). New York: Cambridge.

Mirka Saarilahti is a doctoral student, University of Helsinki, Finland, a Visiting Scholar, Torrance Center for Creative Studies, and an elementary school teacher. Bonnie Cramond is Associate Professor, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Georgia, and a research fellow with the Torrance Center for Creative Studies. Helena Sieppi is a doctoral student, University of Tampere, Finland, and an elementary school teacher and art class teacher.