We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 January 2019
How can special collections and archives (SCA) services contribute to the development of creativity in higher education students? An understanding of how creativity is developed can help those who work with special collections and archives to better design sessions that facilitate this development. Creativity is defined, put in context, and discussed as a metacognitive process. SCA as an environment that can contribute to the development of creativity is explored, along with the importance of the learner voice and pedagogical tools that allow for the facilitation of metacognitive experiences.
This article is adapted from a paper delivered in July 2018 at the ARLIS/UK & Ireland Conference, at the Architectural Association, London.
1. Hargrove, Ryan A., “Assessing the long-term impact of a metacognitive approach to creative skill development,” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 23:3 (2013): 492CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2. Clarke, Angela, and Cripps, Peter, “Fostering creativity: a multiple intelligences approach to designing learning in undergraduate fine art,” International Journal of Art & Design Education 31:2 (2012): 114CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3. Wallas, Graham, The Art of Thought (New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1926)Google Scholar.
4. Dineen, Ruth and Collins, Elspeth, “Killing the goose: conflicts between pedagogy and politics in the delivery of a creative education,” International Journal of Art & Design Education 24:1 (2005): 44–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5. Marshall, Julia, “Thinking outside and on the box: creativity and inquiry in art Practice,” Art Education 63:2 (2010): 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6. Hartman, Hope J., “Introduction,” in Metacognition in Learning and Instruction: Theory, Research and Practice (New York: Springer, 2001), xiCrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7. Proust, Joëlle, “Metacognition,” Philosophy Compass 5:11 (2010), 989CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8. Mackey, Thomas P. and Jacobson, Trudi E., Metaliteracy: Reinventing Information Literacy to Empower Learners (Chicago: ALA Neal-Schuman, 2014), 2Google Scholar.
9. Ibid., 5.
10. Ibid., 2.
11. Mackey and Jacobson, Metaliteracy, 1.
12. Hargrove, “Assessing the long-term impact,” 493.
13. Ibid., 492.
14. Ibid., 493.
15. Dineen and Collins, “Killing the goose,” 46.
16. Alex Ryan and Daniella Tilbury, “Flexible pedagogies: new pedagogical ideas,” in Flexible Pedagogies: Preparing for the Future (Higher Education Academy, 2013), accessed 27 Sept 2018, https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/resources/npi_report.pdf
17. Ryan and Tilbury, “Flexible pedagogies,” 15.
18. Ibid., 5.
19. Loi, Daria and Dillon, Patrick, “Adaptive Educational Environments as Creative Spaces,” Cambridge Journal of Education 36:3 (2006), 373CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
20. Ibid.
21. Dineen and Collins, “Killing the goose,” 46.
22. Originally developed by Lyman, Frank Lyman. F. T., “The responsive classroom discussion: the inclusion of all students,” Mainstreaming Digest (College Park: University of Maryland Press, 1981), 109–113Google Scholar.
