Journal of Academic Development and Education JADE Issue 9 | Page 22

22 | JADE
ARTICLE #1 | 23
HELEN A. MILLWARDAY ÖZEN
medium through which students can express their opinions and
knowledge. Indeed, the use of art as a medium has been widely
documented by the existing literature (Boal, 2000; Nakamura,
2009). Once again, this can be seen as beneficial to those with a
dislike of the traditional forms of learning output such as written
and verbal responses. Furthermore, the use of creative methods can
encourage understanding, for example, in providing an alternate way
of thinking about problems through the use of props.
Indeed, Sutherland (2012:25) suggests, ‘arts-based methodologies as
experiential learning to improve participants’ abilities in responsibly
navigating the complexities of contemporary organisational
contexts’. In doing so, Sutherland provides an example in which MBA
students take turns at conducting a choir to develop their leadership
skills. The students are reported as focusing on being able to ‘see,
hear and feel the aesthetics of leadership as a property of group
interaction’ (2012:27), therefore affording an alternate way in which
understanding about aspects such as listening and giving directions
can be gained. Similarly, Taylor and Ladkin (2009) discuss a group of
MBA students taking art classes in order to improve their creativity
and a class of Medical students being taught art history to help with
diagnostic skills when dealing with patients, or being taught theatre
techniques to help increase empathy.
However, ‘arts-based methods can act as the “flavour of the month”,
adding something new and engaging … with little idea of what
that something is.’ (Taylor and Ladkin, 2009:55). While the use of
creative methods within the classroom can provide an exciting way
in which students can explore difficult material, it is vital that the
teaching professional remains focused on the intended learning
outcomes. Without such focus, intended learning outcomes could
easily be forgotten, with emphasis instead being placed only upon
the creative activity itself. It is also important that the teaching
professional is mindful of the nature of the class, for example, the
time and space restrictions of the session, but also, whether students
may feel uncomfortable in engaging with such activities.
Conclusion
This paper has outlined four key characteristics involved with good
teaching practices. The paper has suggested that the ‘tried and
tested’ methods of getting students to think for themselves, keeping
discussions at an appropriate level, situating theory in reality and
good communication provide a multitude of benefits for both
students and education professionals. This paper has also explored
the role of creative methods of teaching within the university
classroom. While such methods are being hailed by some scholars
as a positive and novel way to encourage student engagement and
CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD TEACHING:
THE USE OF CREATIVE METHODS WITHIN OUR UNIVERSITY CLASSROOMS?
participation (Sutherland, 2012), this paper suggests that teaching
professionals should remain mindful of the limitations of creative
methods. Indeed, time and space restrictions and the individual
characteristics of students are likely to be a deciding factor in the
success of any such activities. Furthermore, this paper also suggests
that when attempting to utilize creative methods of teaching within
the university classroom, teaching professionals should remain
mindful of the intended learning outcomes of the class, rather, than
allowing students to focus only on the task at hand. Indeed, while this
paper recognises the potential of creative methods to encourage
and engage students, the question as to whether creative methods
are just another juggling ball to be held in the air by the education
professional remains.
References
Boal, A. (2000) Theater of the oppressed (new edition). Pluto Press London.
Cuthbert, P. F. (2005) ‘The Student Learning Process: Learning Styles or
Learning Approaches?’, Teaching in Higher Education, 10 (2), pp.235–249.
Dezeuze, A. (2010) The ‘do-it-yourself’ artwork: Participation from Fluxus to
new media. Manchester University Press.
Mattern, M. (1999) ‘John Dewey, Art and Public Life’, The Journal of Politics, 61
(1), pp.54–75.
Millward, H. A. (2016) ‘Issues of Student Diversity and the Role of Technological
Tools for Learning in Higher Education’, The Journal of Academic Development
and Education, 6, pp.9–16.
Nakamura, K. (2009) ‘The Significance of Dewey’s Aesthetics in Art Education
in the Age of Globalization’, Educational Theory, 59 (4), pp.427–440.
Morss, K. and Murray, R, (2005) Teaching at University: A Guide for
Postgraduates & Researchers. SAGE Publications.
Saroyan, A. and Snell, L. S. (1997) ‘Variations in lecturing styles’ Higher
Education, 33, pp.85–104.
Sreedhar, P. (2013) ‘Using Bloom’s Taxonomy as a Pedagogical Tool for
Teaching Written Business Communication’, The IUP Journal of Soft Skills, 7
(3), pp.51–55.
Sutherland, I. (2012) ‘Arts-based methods in leadership development:
Affording aesthetic workspaces, reflexivity and memories with momentum’,
Management Learning, 44 (1), pp.25–43.
Taylor, S. T. and Ladkin, D. (2009) ‘Understanding Arts-Based Methods in
Managerial Development’, Academic of Management Learning & Education, 8
(1), pp.55–69.
Conflicts of Interest
The section ‘Characteristics of Good Teaching’ has been revised
from an assignment submitted during the TLHEP course at Keele
University in 2015.