Article Report Writing - G4 PDF

Preview

Summary

ARTICLE ANALYSIS REPORTARTICLE TITLE: “Creativity and Technology in Education: An International Perspective”NAME & MATRIC NO: Nurul Nabila binti Ab Gani (1816282) Nur Mardhiah Hawani binti Zulkefli (1811894) Ulfatun Aini binti Zul Arman (2019990) SECTION: 31LEED 1301SEMESTER 2, 2020/INSTRUCT...

Description

ARTICLE ANALYSIS REPORT

ARTICLE TITLE: “Creativity and Technology in Education: An International Perspective”

NAME & MATRIC NO: 1. Nurul Nabila binti Ab Gani (1816282) 2. Nur Mardhiah Hawani binti Zulkefli (1811894) 3. Ulfatun Aini binti Zul Arman (2019990)

SECTION: 31

LEED 1301 SEMESTER 2, 2020/21

INSTRUCTOR: Madam Zuraidah binti Ismail

SUBMISSION DATE: 11 April 2021

The article “Creativity and Technology in Education: An International Perspective” by Danah Henrikson, Michael Henderson, Edwin Creely, Sona Ceretkova, Miroslava Cernochova, Evgenia Sendova, Erkko T.Sointu and Christopher H. Tienken under the SDG of quality education is insightful and informative because the authors emphasized the benefits and challenges of enacting creativity in the K-12 context and examined the educational policy with regard to twenty-first-century learning and technology from an international perspective. The article was published on 9 August 2018 and it addressed how creativity intersects with issues of educational policies and the benefits as well as the challenges of infusing creativity in twenty-first-century education. Creativity in education is crucial in cultivating creative practices, new skills, and knowledge to fulfill the job market demand and compete for the industrial revolution. Hence, the responsible target body must pay close attention to it. The core issues that can be observed in this article are the complex connection between technology and creativity in twenty-first-century education and the tension faced by the field of education lies in how to navigate this conflict between the needs of policy and the nature of creativity.

The first main idea executed by the authors is a review on creativity in national education policies. To give a better understanding, the authors shared several national education policies in 6 countries as supporting details. First and foremost, in Australia, the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, n.d.) stipulated the minimum curriculum guideline for F-10 students in learning areas, cross-curriculum priorities, and general capabilities. Secondly, in Bulgaria, New Pre-School and School Education Law were introduced to deal with the key competencies expected by Bulgarian students. Whereas in the Czech Republic, RVP (rámcové vzdělávací programy) or (National Institute for Education, Educational Counseling and Educational Training Facilities, n.d.) provided a comprehensive framework for

2

educational programs to develop students’ creativity and thinking skill. In addition, the National Core Curriculum (NCC) in Finland guided the Finnish compulsory basic education for students aged between 7 until 15 and provided a uniform foundation for education providers to create local school-level curricula. While in Slovakia, The State Education Program (SEP) functioned as the key national curriculum document and had been implemented in schools since 2015. The National Institute for Education in the Slovak Republic (National Institute for Education in Slovak Republic 2017a, b) was highly responsible for the implementation of the SEP into school practice and provides teachers methodological guidance. Finally, the US followed The Common Core State Standards as a set of curriculum standards for Grades K-12 in mathematics and language arts which provided requirements in the way of creative thinking for K-12 students.

Apart from that, the authors’ main idea is the benefits and challenges of enacting creativity in twenty-first-century education. By referring to Perry (2017), the authors stressed on the difficulty of arriving at a specific vision of what creativity presented as a challenge to the policy, which often demanded detail, clarity and structure for enactment. Meanwhile, based on Craft (2010), when the nature of a construct like creativity (subjective, complex, ill-structured) sat at odds with the demands of policy (clarity, agreed-upon guidelines, specifics in structure), challenges will absolutely arise. To support this idea even further, the authors also applied the statement from Zhao (2012) which stated that these national policies reveal some disparity between how creativity was valued rhetorically, yet it was ignored or limited by policy documents. For instance, there was no shortage of both popular and scholarly discourse focused on the importance and the value of creative thinking - both in society and in classrooms. In Australia, the curriculum in Finland, Slovakia and Bulgaria identified creativity as a competency that works across subject areas. However, while

3

Slovakia and Australia largely associated it with problem-solving, Bulgaria framed it in terms of a mode of expression. Whereas in the Czech Republic, it appeared and received as remarks, yet were not clearly and consistently infused across the curriculum, but was tied to learning in the arts or through functional application and instrumental needs, rather than focusing on it across subjects or developing creativity more broadly as an approach to thinking or expression. Thus, in order to thoroughly implement creativity into the education system, both advantages and drawbacks need to be considered.

The authors’ purpose in publishing this article is to review how creativity emerges in education systems across several national education policies and to explore what basic policy content around creativity looks like across several educational contexts. From the beginning until the end of this article, the tones used by the authors are informative and objective, which is as neutral as possible to suit the article’s purpose. Last but not least, the intended audience of this article is targeted to the government, the general public, educators, and students.

The article's strengths can clearly be seen through the authors’ ideas supported with adequate justifications and pragmatic approaches that are compact with numerous information. Consequently, the article was well-written as the ideas were structured with detailed explanations supported with solid points from various authentic references which is appropriate and suitable for the intended audiences of the article. On the other hand, the article was weak at delivering the main ideas because the reviews on them were vague and lengthy. The authors explained too many subtopics which were not according to the sequence, thus, it may confuse the audience in understanding and identifying the main ideas of this article.

4

The overall analysis of this article found that the writers are of the view with the authors’ idea where the challenges in creativity is a core issue in the field of education of the twenty-first century. The article discussed the challenges that need to be approached properly in order to implement the position of creativity within the curriculum as engaged by the national education policies which provide a vision, lay out goals, and procedures for achieving it. Although there is still little direct connection between creativity and technology in policy, the author highlighted that reviewing the international experiences may be a valuable way to obtain essential information about these public policies on educational technology and it could help to generate plans for the implementation of key processes such as teacher training and support. Moreover, international comparison studies could serve as valuable resources for assessment adoption or development and can help us understand how technology impacts learning processes and when other factors moderate those effects.

To conclude, the writer proposes that the current education system should be geared in line with the SDG framework so that the students and instructors can benefit from the advancement of implementing creativity and technology into the education system in the future. Generally, the writers wholeheartedly agree on the importance of enacting technology and creativity in education to create high-order thinking skills and to establish outstanding innovation, creativity, and imagination among educators and learners. Looking at the whole context of the article and the fact that the authors had successfully conveyed the main ideas, the writers also believe that this article can be very beneficial to the intended audiences as it provides a thoughtful insight regarding the effectiveness of creativity and technology as education platforms as well as how it differs from one another.

5...