Linh Dao - Thesis on Vietnamese Education

7/28/2019 Linh Dao - Thesis on Vietnamese Education

1/157

Space for creativityA Cultural Citique on Conditions of Creativity within Vietnamese schools

Participants of The Creative Kid Project

In Partial fulfillment for the degree of

Bachelor of Arts in Development Studies

Brown University

April 15, 2013

by LINH DAO


2/157

First Reader

JENNIFER LINDSAY

Second Reader

JENNIFER COSTANZA

Abstract

Grappling with the problem of ineffective education, this study asks what "creativity"means and how it plays out in the context of Vietnamese schools. Given the cultural and

institutional specificities of the Vietnamese education system, it also asks if a creativity-fostering

education within this system is desirable and attainable. As creativity has traditionally been afocus of Western scholars, this study challenges the notion of the universalization of creativity

and brings nuances to the relationship between students' expression of creativity and their

learning environment, in the context of Vietnam. While the first stage of this study seeks to

answer the question "Are Vietnamese students creative", the second stage seeks to answer thequestions "what explains the differences in student creativity?" and specifically "under what

conditions, or what kind of learning environments, does student creativity flourish?" Results

from Vietnamese students of different educational backgrounds, especially of those from two

middle schools with distinct educational models, provide interesting answers to these questions.Vietnamese students show potentials and traits of creativity; yet the reason for their creativity

and the space where they express their creativity are different from what previous scholarship on

creativity suggests.


3/157i

Acknowledgement

My fieldwork for this thesis would not have been possible without my team from theCreative Kid Project 2012, including Trang Nguyen, Suong Tran, Viet Vu, Ly Nguyen, and

many more. Special thanks to Evan Schwartz for being the first person that helped me organize

CKP. Thank you for having encouraged me in many ways to pursue this followup thesis.

I am also deeply indebted to my thesis advisor, Jennifer Lindsay. Thank you for your

patience, power in softness, and words of wisdom. Thank you for having agreed to go on this

journey with me on top of your other commitments, and always reminding me to connect thedots and think about the bigger picture.

Special thanks to Jennifer Costanza, who not only acted as my second advisor but who

has been a mentor to me for the past year. Thank you for your sharp critiques and incredibleinsights. Thank you for always pushing me to make me realize that I could push even harder.

Words cannot fully express my gratitude to Professor Jin Li, who is perhaps the mostimportant indirect contributor to my thesis. The work that you have done has inspired a great part

of this study. I am so lucky to have the opportunity to both learn from you and work with you.

An integral part of this thesis is the community of teachers, students, and parents fromTrung Vuong (Traditional) School and Thuc Nghiem (Experimental) School in Hanoi, Vietnam.

Special thanks to Tram, Phuong, and Mymy incrediblely helpful sisters from Trung Vuong. Iam also deeply honored by the support from Mrs. Quynh and all Thuc Nghiem staff. Thank youall for welcoming me into your classrooms and considering me part of your school days for the

entire month of January 2013.

I am also grateful for my roommate, Phan Ha, who has accompanied with me all the wayduring this process. Your willingness to listen and share, your encouragement at moments when I

need it the most, and above all your passion for education and equality have inspired and given

me the power to follow through.

I cannot say thank enough to everyone who has helped me editing and proofreading this

thesis, especially the fellows from Brown University Writing Center. More than just correctingmy grammar and writing, you all have helped me sharpen and realize my own arguments during

the several iterations of this thesis.

Thanks also to my brother, Kien, who is now preparing for his most important exam thusfar in his school yearsthe exntrance exam to high school. From you, I am constantly remindedof why I started CKP and this thesis project in the first place.

Finally, thank to my parents, bo Trung & me Hoa, for making me the person I am today.From my father, I learn the values of being spontaneous, passionate and whole-hearted. From my

mother, I learn the importance of being thoughtful, down-to-earth and considerate. Your love and

support have shown me firsthand why I am here and why my effort matters. I love you with allmy heart.


4/157ii

Tables, Charts and Pictures34 Table 2.1: Overall of Methods used

35 Table 2.2: Breakdown of Classroom Observations37 Table 2.3: Breakdown of Students Surveys38 Table 2.4: Breakdown ofStudents Interviews

39 Table 2.5: Breakdown of Teachers Interviews47 Table 3.1: Profile of CKP Candidates48 Table 3.2: School Profile of CKP Candidates

51 Chart 3.1: School-based Breakdown of Passive & Balanced Learning

51 Chart 3.2: Cross-school Comparison of Passive & Balanced Learning52 Table 3.3: Age Compositions of different Middle Schools

53 Table 3.4: Age-based analysis of Passive & Balanced Learning

Chart 3.3: Age-based Comparison of Passive & Balanced Learning

55 Table 3.5: Five components of Creativity among CKP candidates56 Table 3.6: Percentage of Students with Different Creativity Traits

57 Table 3.7: Creativity Assessment of CKP Candidates

57 Chart 3.4: Creativity Scores of CKP Candidates58 Table 3.8: School-based Assessment of Creativity for CKP Candidates

58 Chart 3.5: Cross-school Comparison of Creativity Level

59 Chart 3.6: School-based Assessment of Creativity

60 Table 3.9: Inter-school Comparison of age-based Creativity Score79 Chart 4.1: Frequency of Performance-related concerns among Students and

Teachers in each school

81 Table 4.1: Level of Engagement in Classroom Activities as expressed by Studentsand Teachers in each school

83 Chart 4.2: Frequency of Workload-management Concerns among Students in each

school

87 Table 4.2: Basic characteristics of Traditional School and Experimental School asof 2013

88 Picture 4.1: Experimental School Teacher attended to a student in class

89 Picture 4.2: Traditional School Teacher lectured to a big classroom94 Table 4.3: Mapping School characteristics onto Urbans framework of open-

learning environment and Cropeleys Blocks to Creativity95 Table 4.4: Five components of Creativity among students from both schools96 Table 4.5: Breakdown of Different Levels of Creativity expressed by students in

both schools

97 Chart 4.3: Breakdown of Different Levels of Creativity expressed by students in

both Schools98 Table 4.4: Level of Creativity based on Class Type and Age

99 Table 4.5: Comparable Interviews from the two schools

117 Chart 5.1: Diagrams for Mind-Oriented Learning Processes in the West and

Virtue-Oriented Learning Processes in the East119 Chart 5.2: Breakdown of Classroom Activities by students from both Schools

119 Chart 5.3: Breakdown of Classroom Activities by students from each school


5/157iii

Table of Contenti. Acknowledgements

ii. Graphs, Tables & Charts1 Chapter 1: Introduction2 Overview

4 Why Vietnam?6 A note on Personal Motivations7 The Quest for Creativity (Literature Review)

8

19Creativity in Western Scholarship

Culturally Relevant Framework for Creativity24 Theoretical Propositions25 Limitations

26 Thesis Structure

29 Chapter 2: Methodological Considerations30 Stage 1The Immersion: Are Vietnamese students creative?31 Stage 2The Investigation: How does learning environment influence creativity?

3233

41

Case study: Experimental School and Traditional SchoolTriangulation of Methods

A note on reflexivity44 Chapter 3: Exploring students voice through a student-centered initiative47 Tell me about your dream school!

49 Passive Learning and Balanced Learning

55 Assessing creativity60 Only an age difference?

63 Chapter 4: Tales of the two schools66 Part 1: History

67

69

Experimental SchoolAn ideal and its limits

Traditional Schoolthe leading institution72 Part 2: Learning Environment

74

83

8790

The Performance-driven disease

Core-Subjects and Periphery Subjects

Big, diluted classrooms versus small, focused classrooms

Focus on Excellence and Focus on Equality

95 Part 3: Facets of Creativity108 Chapter 5: Conclusion110

111

112

The Stake

The Expectation

Reality Check

114 Culturally Relevant Framework Revisited121 Implications of Findings123 Suggestions for Future Research

124 Final Thoughts: Vietnamese Education and the Creative Kid Project

iv. Appendixxxii. Bibliography


6/1571

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction

Starting to study abroad at the early age of 16 was hard for meI knew that I was going

to miss my then 8-year-old brother Kien. So whenever I went back to Vietnam in the summer, I

made a conscious effort to reconnect with Kien.

It was a scorching summer day in 2011. Kien came home at around 8p.m, throwing his

backpack on the couch where I was sitting. He seemed both aloof and exhausted.

Whats up? I asked him. Just came back from Math class.He answered. Every

Wednesday, Kien had to take extra tutoring in Math, like most of his peers.

How was it? Boring, as usual. In a matter-of-fact voice, Kien responded while

quickly turning to his iPhone. Our chat stopped there, for Kien was uninterested in elaborating

on why.

Kiens answer to me was a moment of dj vu, reminding me exactly of how I was, 8

years earlier, at his age! Back then, I also thought school was boring, but I could not care less.

Just like Kien, I was disengaged and uninterested in doing anything about it.

But the very fact that I was so concerned about Kiens response signaled that I had

changed somehow along the way. During the years abroad, not only was I told that my opinion

mattered, that being engaged in ones own education was important, but I also got to see how

fun and relevant school could be, and how much I could do about it. I wish I could travel back in

time to tell myself of 8 years earlier, just as much as I wanted to tell that to Kien.

I quickly grabbed a pen and a piece of paper, and started writing down my initial

reflections: Kids are creative by nature; but they need to be able to see that their opinion

matters, in orderfor their creativity to flourish.1

1This later serves as the Creative Kid Projects first mission statement.


7/1572

Overview

This study grapples with the problem of ineffective education. All around the world, an

incredible amount of time, energy and potential are wasted in classrooms filled with bored

students and frustrated teachers (Wagner, 2008). Beyond formal classes, for many students in

some parts of the world, particularly in Asia, back-to-back formal classes followed by extra-

classes, also known as shadow education, is the norm (Bray, 1999).2

According to a recent

publication of a decade-long study on extra tutoring phenomenon in Vietnam, Dang (2008)

found that an increasing number of Vietnamese students spend up to 12 hoursper day running a

marathon from class to class: for these students, the average day starts at 6a.m and ends at

11p.m, leaving no breathing space for other activities.3

Policy makers are increasingly aware of these problems. In Vietnam, for example, the

Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) in their decadal report titled Education

Development Strategic Plan for 2011-2020 identified low employability competences of

students and graduates as the main weakness of the Vietnamese education system (Ministry of

Education & Training, 2012). Three pressing questions were asked: 1.What is the role of

vocational education versus traditional education? , 2. Should education be learner-centered or

teacher-centered?; and 3. How to educate the young in a globalized world? Answering these big

questions, the report concluded, would enable policy makers to solve the problem of Vietnamese

education (, 2012).

2 Extra classes, or formally known as shadow education, refers to the privatized teaching of main subjects either by

institutionalized businesses or individual teachers from or outside of students schools. In many developing andsome developed countries ranging from Brazil, Egypt to Japan, Singapore, or Tanzania, shadow education has

become one of the most pressing education concerns and in 1999 reached the UNICEFF reform agenda.3This is my attempt to translate the term chay sho, which means running show business in Vietnamese. Thisterm refers to the mindless act of running from class to class that most Vietnamese students go through in their

school life.


8/1573

Predominantly, many Western researchers have suggested that the answer for these

questions lies in focusing on creativity, for both normative as well as practical reasons.

Creativity, defined as the application of knowledge and skills in new ways to achieve a valued

goal empowers students, both as learners and future workers (Seltzer & Bentley, 1999, p. 10).

Researchers and some educators argue that not only is creativity an effective goal for pedagogy

but also a great economic imperative in the age of globalization. In fact, many authors even

claim that there is a trend towards the universalization of creativity: across all countries, schools

want more creative learners and employers want a more creative workforce (Kaufman &

Sternberg, 2006; Craft, Jefferey, & Leibling, 2001).

This current study, however, serves to challenge this argument: that is, it takes a look at

creativity, as conceptualized in Western scholarship, and examines whether a focus on this kind

of creativity could be an answer to the problem of ineffective education in Vietnam. Using

frameworks that stem from Western tradition in the specific context of Vietnam, this study

makes the case for why a more culturally relevant framework is necessary in researching

creativity in education.

I began by conducting exploratory research on participants of the Creative Kid Project

(CKP), an educational program I founded that embraces creativity at its core.4

By analyzing

students perceptions and aspirations on schooling, I sought to answer the first question: Are

Vietnamese students capable of being creative, and if yes, to what extent?

The second part of my research grapples with the why questions: What explain the

differences in Vietnamese student creativity? As CKP attracted students across different types of

schools in Vietnam, it opened an opportunity for me to expand my investigation beyond

participants of CKP to other Vietnamese students and their learning environments. As previous

4See CKPs mission statement in Appendix A. The opening vignette is the story of how CKP came about.


9/1574

scholars have suggested, learning environment, particularly classroom environment, turns out to

be an important determinant of student creativity, I further asked: Under what kind of learning

environments does a student creativity flourish? What characteristics of a learning environment

best explain differences in student creativity?

My main findings suggest that although Vietnamese students can be very creative, the

reason for their creativity and the channels through which some express creativity differ from

what previous scholarship suggests, and in some case even contradict it. Particularly, a perceived

more open learning environment that is creativity-fostering does not necessarily lead to more

creativity in students. Cultural norms and values seem to play a large role in students learningenvironment, their learning beliefs, and in turn, their decision to express their own creativity.

Why Vietnam?

This study assesses the value and expression of creativity in education in Vietnam, which

no other research has dealt with to this date. As explained further, research on creativity has been

heavily focusing on the West, particularly Great Britain and North America. Recently, in a

volume titled Creativity: When East Meets West, the first work in a whole range of research

on creativity that compiles non-Western studies on creativity, Lau et al. proposed that

theorization of creativity in the East is too lopsidedly dependent on Western concepts and

theories, hindering any breakthrough in theory building by scholars in the East (Lau, Hui, &

Ng, 2004, p. 6). However, these authors reached their conclusion from studies done mostly in

China and Chinese-speaking countries such as Singapore and Hong Kong. This current study, I

propose, sits at the nexus between the East and the West, as the case of Vietnam neither fits

perfectly the West or the East dichotomy.


10/1575

On one hand, Vietnam can be seen as a typical Eastern country with a heavily exam-

driven, teacher-centered and virtue-oriented educational system (Altbach & Kelly, 1978). The

1000-year period of Chinese domination, followed by unstable political periods until doimoi,

Vietnams major economic reform in 1986, left a legacy of a stagnant and change-averse

education. For the past few decades since doimoi, Vietnam has made tremendous progress in

some areas of education (such as primary education enrollment) yet dismal progress in others

(such as exams, textbooks and overall heavy curriculum). Each decade witnesses a "Total and

Fundamental Reform" (1982, 1991 and 2000 and 2011), yet many fundamental problems that

have led to the need for reform in the first place, such as curriculum overload, have not been

resolved (Le, 1991). As chapter 4 demonstrates, the exam-driven curriculum in many cases

serves as the root causes for many of the challenges facing students, teachers and the schools as a

whole in adopting more innovative pedagogy. But as Vietnam will pass another round of the

aforementioned reform; the Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training is determined in

taking bold initiatives this time around to resolve the problem. This study looks at Vietnam at a

very timely period (London, 2011).

On the other hand, Vietnams education system is also complex and multifaceted in

nature. Besides Confucian tradition, Vietnam's education system consists of many features that

typify a "Western education" as a legacy of French colonialism and the Soviet sphere of

influence (World Bank, 2004). For example, written Vietnamese language is one of the few

Asian languages that use Latin script instead of Chinese characters or Sanskrit like most other

Asian languages. Moreover, as discussed further in chapter 4, one of the two schools that form

the focus of this study, Experimental School, was born out of a Western tradition of a child-

centered education popular in Soviet Russia during the 1980s. Likewise, the other school,


11/1576

Traditional School, was a project by French colonizers in the early 1930s as the first all-girls

school in Southeast Asia. Thus, Western influence has also been a running theme in Vietnamese

education.

The case of Vietnam, thus, adds richness and nuances not only to the discussion on

creativity in education but also to the role of culture in the practice of learning and teaching.

A note on personal motivations

This study is important to me, personally, as someone who has studied for eleven years in

the traditional public school system in Vietnam, two years in an English-speaking international

high school in India, and four years in an American university with a Liberal Arts education. My

exposure to different pedagogical systems with distinct styles yet many of the same problems,

such as ineffective teaching or unengaged learning, has encouraged me to always question,

compare and evaluate different educational models and approaches: What is in a good

education? What is the purpose of learning? Why should students care? As such, this study is my

attempt to search for a sense of motivation and interest in education that seem to have become

lost in so many students, myself included, throughout our schooling.

Furthermore, this study is also important to my own educational startup, the Creative Kid

Project. After initial conception during the summer of 2011, Creative Kid Project was founded in

the spring of 2012 (see opening vignette). With the mission to "inspire students to unleash their

creativity and make an impact in their community", CKP 2012 brought together 28 students from

various middle schools in Hanoi, Vietnam, to learn skills (such as critical thinking, problem-

solving and presentation skills), work in teams and build a project to improve their own schools.5

5 See Appendix A, CKP Information Packet, for more information


12/1577

At the end of CKP, six groups of students presented their proposals to parents, teachers and

school headmasters to voice their concerns about the problems in their schools.

In a way, this research would never have happened without CKP. Particularly, CKP

provided me with an opportunity to acquire initial data and subjects for my research.

Additionally, the two schools that I studied in chapter 4 are also the two with the largest number

of applications to CKP.6

By the same token CKP also benefited from the results of this research

because of its exclusive look at the problems of the Vietnamese education system, the main focus

of our program.

At the same time, it is important for me, both as a researcher as well as the founder of

CKP to separate these two projects. While CKP is an experimental program with creativity at its

core (that is, CKP by default adopts a pro-creativity framework), this research study is an

academic investigation that is intended to study creativity and challenge conventional notions of

what creativity entails. Ideally, regardless of my own personal belief on creativity, the CKP

framework should not influence the framework used in this study. In the following section, the

Quest for Creativity, I take the neutral stance of a researcher who wants to explore and learn

more about existing scholarship, as opposed to that of the founder of the Creative Kid Project. In

fact, the quest to dissect what creativity means and how it has been conceptualized as well as

executed forms the crux of this study, as I shall explain in the rest of this study.

The Quest for Creativity

The following section situates my thesis in the existing body of literature on creativity in

education. In the first part, I seek to find answers for my research questions from previous

6 The two schools are Trung Vuong (Traditional) Middle School and Thuc Nghiem (Experimental) Middle School.

For more information about these schools see chapter 4.


13/1578

scholarship. While many researchers have delved into this topic, I shall show that most of them

draw their main framing principles from Western philosophy of education, such as Deweys

concept of child-centered education, and most of the conclusions and suggestions are more

appropriate in a Western learning context. Nonetheless, existing theories are necessary for my

own understanding and helpful for my research. From them, I extrapolate a framework of

analysis to examine students expressions of creativity (Torrance), conditions for creativity

(Cropeley) and the criteria of open-learning environment (Urban). Although most of these

studies and frameworks do not answer my research questions regarding Vietnamese education,

they provide me with general trends and predictions for creativity.

In the second part, I give a more extensive overview of Eastern perspectives on education

and specifically Jin Lis work, Cultural Foundations of Learning. I introduce the role of

cultural relevance in research as advocated by socio-cultural theorists. In looking for answers for

my research questions, I argue that most Eastern critique of studies on education in general and

of studies on creativity in particular draw from a few limited Eastern countries, mainly China or

Japan, which are not necessarily representative of the East. I conclude that my study will make

best use of whats available in the literature but mostly rely on my own background and

understanding of Vietnamese education as a cultural filter for my analysis.

Creativity in Western scholarship

The Education Paradox

The education paradox is a Western discourse on education that questions the purpose of

education and the relationship between student and teacher. It dates back to the Classical era,

when Plato, believing that children would never learn unless they wanted to learn, wrote:


14/1579

Compulsory learning never sticks in the mind (Plato, The Republic, 7.536e). Various

contemporary thinkers, including Socratic-Kantian theorists like Leonard Nelson (1956)

cognitive scientists like Gilbert Ryle (1949), and social development scholars like David

Hawkins (2011), have also describe the paradox of education. Sizer & Sizer gave perhaps the

best statement of this paradox in the context of schooling:

Schools exist for children, but children are often seen as the schools clients, as its

powerless people. They are told that they are in school not because of what they know

but because of what they dont know. All over the world, powerless people lose the

instinct to help, because it is so often rebuffed in them (Sizer & Sizer, 1999).

Sizer and Sizer clearly highlight the ever-pressing nature of this paradox in the modern

days, ever since the introduction of mass schooling in the US. This central paradox of education

poses an existential crisis for pedagogy: although the teacher wants to help his or her students

learn, it is not until the student internalizes the knowledge and thus no longer needs the teacher

that the teacher fulfills this mission (Fisher, 1993). The ultimate goal of education, namely

students acquisition of knowledge, might conflict with the very means to get to that goal,

namely the transfer of knowledge from teacher to student. The question is then, how can this

education paradox be resolved, if it is resolvable in the first place?

One possible answer to this question comes from John Dewey, the mastermind behind

child-centered education and many other influential theories in education and social reform.

Considered the Father of Progressive Education in the United States, Dewey had in spired a

movement in the United States at the turn of the twentieth century that would make learning

meaningful and pleasurable by focusing on the needs and interests of children (Zilversmit, 1993,

p. 1). The publication of Deweys The School & Society in 1899 enunciated a comprehensive


15/15710

account of his educational philosophy, a child-centered education thatbegins with the interests

and capacities of the child, not with the formal curriculum (Zilversmit, 1993, p. 7). He believed

that each child should be regarded as a distinct individual who comes to school with a number of

important assets, such as an interest in communication, in finding out things, in making things,

which the teacher should make use of (Dewey J. , 1900). He also believed that a gradual interest

in the inquiry of abstract knowledge could come through time, paving way for an increasing

capacity to see long-term goals (Zilversmit, 1993, p. 7). From this perspective, the paradox is

addressed by a focus on the students: if the teacher starts from what the child is interested in and

can do, he will be able to facilitate the childs process of internalizing the knowledge.

Creativity as the solution for the education paradox

Advocates of child-centered education also propose that learning should be seen as a

process of problem-solving rather than just knowledge-acquiring (Dewey, 1900; Entwistle, 1970).

It is this particular characteristic of a child-centered education that leads to the argument for

focusing creativity, defined as the application of knowledge and skills in new ways to achieve

a valued goal (Seltzer & Bentley, 1999, p. 10). In fact, the first call for the teaching of creativity

in education originated in England in the 1960s, where discussion on child-centered education

loomed large (Craft, Jefferey, & Leibling 2001). The publication of the Plowden Report (1967)

by the British Central Advisory Council for Education recognized creativity as a desirable aim

for inclusion in the curriculum, particularly in primary education (Craft et al, 2001). The report,

known for its praising of child-centered approaches and stressing that at the heart of the

educational process lies the child, is the first official attempt to link creativity directly to a

child-centered education.


16/15711

However, the pedagogic approach advocated by the Plowden Report came under attack

by many critics who argued that children could not be expected to discover for themselves

without significant knowledge input (Cox & Dyson, 1971). Craft (2001) also pointed out that it

was this strong pushback on child-centered education that laid the way for the introduction of a

subject-content-based national curriculum in Britain at the end of the 1980s.

The renewed interest in creativity in education in Britain in the 1990s brought a new

dimension to the established link between creativity and a child-centered education: economic

imperative. Many scholars have argued that that the shift from a traditional economy

(manufacturing, industry-based) to the the weightless economy (e-commerce, service-based,)

required greater flexibility from the labor workforce (Seltzer & Bentley, 1999; Green & Little,

2007). Facing global competitiveness and pressure to lower wages, workers are encouraged to

acquire skills that could apply to portfolio careers or many different jobs. As Seltzer and

Bentley put it:

To thrive in our economy defined by the innovative application of knowledge, we must

be able to do more than absorb and feedback information. Learners and workers must

draw on their entire spectrum of learning experiences and apply what they have learned

in new and creative ways. A central challenge for the education system is therefore to

find ways of embedding learning in a range of meaning for contexts, where students can

use their knowledge and skills creatively to make an impact on the world around them.

(Seltzer & Bentley, 1999, pp. 9-10)

According to Seltzer and Bentley, a creative learner can also become a creative worker.

In this new age, students are also regarded as potential workers who have to prove themselves to

be globally competitive and flexible. This prioritization ofagency in the face of rapid changes


17/15712

in the economy aligns perfectly with the objectives of educational reformists in the 1920s.

Creativity once again regained attention from policy-makers and made its way to the reform

agenda of the 1990s, especially in the Western world (Craft, Jefferey, & Leibling, 2001).

It is important to note that this education-economics duo is still a highly contested idea

and clearly has achieved no global consensus. For example, Kratke (2010) criticized this

approach for its highly affirmative concept of education and the current mode of capitalism.

Clearly, there has been no unanimous acceptance of this default capitalist mode of production in

literature as well as in practice. But it is precisely this contested nature of the economics-

education duo that necessitates an examination on creativity: as this study attempts to demystify

what it means to be creative, it also serves to verify the notion whether creativity is just an

economic tool in this global era.

The above section has explained why a focus on creativity could be a solution to the

problem of ineffective education, as conceived by most scholars from the West. To cope with the

education paradox, focus on the child and his or her creativity seems to be a great pedagogical

goal. Furthermore, in a more globalized world, producing a more creative workforce promises a

great economic tool. The next question is: if creativity is so important, how to incorporate it in

education?

Creativity in Education

The attempts incorporate creativity in education have led to the biggest debate among

creativity scholars, namely proponents of high creativity versus poponents of little-c

creativity (Craft, Jefferey, & Leibling, 2001). While the former argue that creativity represents

exceptional human capacity (Ryhammar & Brolin, 1999, p. 261), the kinds of things that


18/15713

people do that change the world (Feldman et al, 1994) and that are accepted by experts as

being of scientific, aesthetic, social, or technological value (Vernon, 1989, p. 94; Gardner,

2011); the latter emphasize on the notion of an everyday, ordinary and democratic creativity

that all pupils can achieve (Craft, 2000). In his preface of the book Creativity in Education, Sir

Ken Robinson, chairman of the British National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural

Education, confirmed that creativity could and should be taught in school, precisely because it

is not confined to particular activities or people and flourishes under certain conditions

(Craft, Jefferey, & Leibling, 2001; Robinson, 2011). Indeed, a review of creativity literature

reveals that the shift from defining creativity as a trait of personality (nature) to imaginativecapacity or possibility thinking (nurture) has confirmed that creativity can be taught. The

current study, thus, will focus on little-c creativity, the concept of creativity as a potent force

that all can benefit from.

The discussion on creativity also brings the education paradox to the fore. That is, if

creativity is defined as a persons capacity to produce new or original ideas (Vernon, 1989),

the question remains whether this capacity could be taught and how it is taught most effectively.

This question gives rise to yet another classic debate in education between John Dewey, who

pioneered child-centered education and Lev Vygotsky, who pioneered the cultural-historical

focus in education. While sharing similar ideas with Dewey concerning the importance of

classroom activities that engage students, Vygotsky differs fundamentally from Dewey on why

these activities are important (Glassman, 2001). Whereas Dewey, the father behind child-center

education, sees the individual experience at the central of learning, Vygotsky believes that the

individual is immersed and inseparable from his or her own culture. His concept of Zone of

Proximal Development (ZPD) serves as part of his argument on the importance of the


19/15714

environment in general and of the teacher in particular. Zone of Proximal Development refers to

the range of tasks that a child can complete, with the upper limit being the level of potential skill

that the child is able to reach with the assistance of a more capable instructor (Kozulin, 1990).

That is, ZDP is a learning edge with a cultural set of norms.

Likewise, the Hungarian psychologist Csikszentmihalyi (1996), author of Flow and

theory on Creativity also emphasizes the importance of external factors when it comes to

evaluation of creativity. Taking off from Vygotskys conceptualization of socio -cultural

influences, Csikszentmihalyi argues that while creativity originates in the minds, actions and

interactions of individuals, it is fundamentally a socio-cultural concept. That is, a product must

be communicated to other people and at least tolerated by them (socio-cultural validation) in

order to be acclaimed as creative. Taking this view implies that my discussion and evaluation of

creativity should take into consideration the role of external environment. In the next section, I

will review several ways to assess creativity and the challenges regarding this practice, as most

commonly found in Western literature.

Assessing creativity: teachers role and students voice

Research on assessment of creativity has been underdeveloped at best, even within the

Western world. As one of the few scholars that theorize a systematic way to assess creativity,

Torrance (1965) describes four components by which individual creativity could be assessed: 1.

Fluencythe ability to produce a large number of ideas, 2.Flexibilitythe ability to produce a

large variety of ideas, 3. Elaborationthe ability to develop, embellish, or fill out an idea and 4.

Originality the ability to produce ideas that are unusual, statistically infrequent, not banal or

obvious. These components originated from Guildford (1967)s conceptualization of divergent


20/15715

thinking, defined as the ability to generate multiple solutions to a problem, as opposed to

convergent thinking, which is characterized by the orientation towards deriving the single best

answer/solution to a given question/problem (Cropley, 2001).

Torrances criteria are subject to many criticisms from scholars, due to the inherent

subjective nature of this process. Almost unanimously, theorists agree that teachers exude a bias

against creativity, most clearly through their evaluation of students performances (Fryer, 1996;

Torrance, 1965; Cropley, 2001; Craft, 2000). Many studies on teachers use of Torrrance tests

have shown that teachers prefer skills that are easier to measure (such as memorization and

accurate recall). They tend to struggle with evaluating skills such as critical thinking or

independent decision making. Indeed, Cropley (2001) s summary of empirical findings over the

last 30-40 years suggests different variations of the inverse relationship between creativity and

harmonious teacher-student relationship. That is, teachers tend to place a low value on creativity

traits as being useful in the school environment, and often find the most creative students most

disruptive and troublesome of all.

Additionally, Fryer (1996)s study of 1,000 American teachers found that many teachers

preferred judging students work against each individuals past performance. If this is the case, a

teachers assessment of students performance might not reflect their actual ability, but rather the

teachers preconceived notion of their ability. Whats more, Fryer also criticized Torrances

criteria to be too high in standards, potentially damaging students self-esteem. Thus, he

recommended, self-assessment should be encouraged to foster a stronger sense of agency among

students.

A number of research studies have supported Fryers emphasis on students perceptions.

These authors argue that as students approach to learning is a fucntion of their conceptions of


21/15716

learnings, the extent to which they perceive the environment as encouraging or inhibiting their

creativity could influence their creative learning behavior (Saljo, 1979; Prosser, Trigwell, &

Taylor, 1994; Ramsden, 2003). In the words of Reid and Petocz:

The most sophisticated conceptions of learning, and the best approaches to learning,

then, may enable students to demonstrate creativity through their learning outcomes. The

reverse could also be true: students with limiting conceptions and approaches may not be

able to be creative or demonstrate creativity within a specific learning domain. (Reid

& Petocz, 2004, p. 48)

Thus, both Torrances framework and critiques from his opponents are very important to my

research: while the former provides a benchmark to evaluate student creativity, the latter calls for

a more balanced reflection of student creativity. Therefore, my study should focus on students

perceptions of education as a proxy for creativity. In assessing creativity, I will add an extra

criteria besides fluency, originality, flexibility and elaboration, namely agency. As defined by

Fryer, agency represents students active involvement and engagement with their education.

Fostering creativity

Thus far, this literature review has alluded to the fact that the environment and the teacher

are very important determinants in student creativity. To understand this relationship even

further, I lookat the question in what way? That is, I will examine how exactly the teachers

and the environment influence student creativity.

With regards to the role of the teacher, researchers suggest that teachers can resolve their

bias against creativity by balancing between fostering creativity and maintaining other traditional


22/15717

virtues of learning such as good memory, obedience, accuracy, or discipline. Here are some of

the characteristics of a creativity-fostering teacher, as suggested by the literature:

Has a co-operative, socially integrative style of teaching;

Encourages students to learn independently;

Does not neglect mastery of factual knowledge;

Tolerates sensible or bold errors;

Promotes self-evaluation;

Takes questions seriously;

Offers opportunities to work with varied materials under different conditions;

Helps students learn to cope with frustration and failure;

Rewards courage as much as being right.

(Cropley, 2001, p. 138)

Besides the teacher, researchers also highlights the the role of learning environment in

fostering student creativity: many argue that a more open learning environment, particularly that

within the classroom itself, better fosters creativity among students. Urban (1991) defines this

environment as one that is tolerant towards differences and encourages idea-generation and risk-

taking. It is also one that shifts the focus away from the teacher, whose role should be more like

that of a facilitator than an instructor (Cropley, 2001). Many studies have associated this kind of

environment with a high level of creativity. For example, Goyals 1973 study on the varying

degrees of openness of school environments on students from two different middle-schools

indicated that the expression of creative potentialities is encouraged by a flexible and stimulating

school environment and discouraged by a rigid and traditional school environment.


23/15718

According to Urbans framework of analysis, characteristics of an open learning

environment can be categorized into six different components of creativity, all together forms a

Componential Model of Creativity.7

The Six components are:

1. Divergent thinking & doing;

2. General knowledge and thinking base;

3. Specific knowledge base and specific skills;

4. Focusing & task commitment;

5. Motives and Motivation; and

6. Openness and tolerance of ambiguity.

For each of these conditions, Urban offers many concrete and behaviors or patterns of behaviors

that are observable and/or identifiable in a class setting (See Appendix B.2 & B.3 for more

details)

In addition to Urbans framework, Croppley also suggests potential blocks to creativity

within a classroom setting. While most of these characteristics are encompassed in Urbans

framework, it is important to highlight some of the most important ones. Some features of an

anti-creativity learning environment are: emphasis on being right, external evaluation, teachers

impatience with time wasting, conformity pressures, and sharp distinction between work and

play. The emphasis on being right, for example, blocks creativity through the way it distorts

students motivation for learning (pleasing the teacher) and perception of purpose of education

(getting good grades). In a classroom where teacher focuses on getting the right answer,

questions are posed as a discovered problem rather than just a presented problem (Croppley,

1967, p.89).

7 See Appendix B.1,2 and 3 for a detailed description and graphic presentation of this model


24/15719

An important asterisk to add to this discussion on fostering creativity in education is the

implication of the space for creativity. Both Cropeley and Urban seem to point toward an open

learning environment that happens within a classroom setting and could be mediated by an open

teacher. This suggests one important spatial component of creativity: all these researchers

suggest that creativity could and should happen within a more open-learning environment.

Culturally relevant framework for creativity

Although the existing body of literature on creativity highlights many important themes

and debates on creativity in Western education, it does not give adequate attention to the role of

culture in shaping students' expression of creativity. In the next section, I present basic

arguments made by socio-cultural theorists for more culturally relevant theories and frameworks

in research, followed by Jin Li (2012)'s discussion on the fundamental differences between

Eastern and Western concepts, processes and outcomes of learning. Together, they serve as

critiques of existing literature on creativity, which has placed negligible weight at best on

culture.

At the crux of socio-cultural theory is the idea that learning, like any other human

processes, is constantly shaped by "system of powers" within a cultural context. In the words of

Cynthia Lewis and Elizabeth Moje:

"Learning is always situated in participation within discourse communities [that]

produce and struggle over cultural tools, resources, and identities. [It] follows that

learning is shaped by power relations, even-or especially-those relations that are not

obvious acts of power" (Lewis & Moje, 2003, p. 1992).


25/15720

In their research on Latino Youth in Detroit, Lewis and Moje argue that precisely because

this system of powers is oftentimes not "obvious", individuals are deeply entrenched in it while

also able to make use of different aspects of it in different spaces and times. Once an individual

perceive the cultural legitimacy in his or her act, what follows is a reinforcement of this system

and its legitimacy even further. The implicit yet powerful role of culture and system of powers at

large was strongly promoted by some of the most influential thinkers in the 20th

century,

including Foucault (1977), author of Discipline & Punish: the Birth of the Prison and Bordieu

(1984), author of Distinction: a Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Heavily influenced

by the work of these thinkers, Lewis and Moje argue that it is impossible to separate an

individual and his or her act from the discourse on identity, agency, power and of course, culture.

Yet, my review of creativity research reveals that this important characteristic of learning,

that is learning deeply situated in culture, is not given due respect by those that study creativity

in education. Despite acknowledging the role of socio-cultural factors in the evaluation of

creativity (see above section on Csizzentmihalyi), existing theories tend to overlook the role of

power, simplify cultural differences, and argue for a "universalization of creativity" (Kaufman &

Sternberg, 2006; Craft, Jefferey, & Leibling, 2001). In his final concluding chapter of the

International Handbook of Creativity, a collection of scholarly articles on creativity in a wide

variety of countries, Simonton (2006) argues that despite many cultural differences, research on

creativity across countries has converged in many fundamental ways and creativity is, after all,

a universal phenomenon (Simonton, 2006, p. 495). Particularly, he claims that most nations

research is heavily dependent on that of the US, the pioneer of this investigation on creativity.

Similarly, emerging Eastern studies on creativity also express a concern that there has been no


26/15721

major breakthrough in the non-Western world when it comes to creativity research, because this

area of research has been dependent on Western concept for a long time (Lau, Hui & Ng, 2004).

This lopsided dependency on Western research is problematic because, as advocates of

socio-cultural theorists might say, it suggests a kind of power relation at the macro level, namely

the superiority of Western over Eastern model, as well as a kind of power legitimated not by

individual actors but by the general discourse (Rogoff, 2003; Purcell-Gates, 2002; Spring, 2010).

My task in this study, thus, is to problematize this taken for granted discourse and to identify

actual cultural storylines that frame the expressions of creativity by individual actors, particular

Vietnamese students.

Along the same line, Jin Li (2012) and her work on the differences between Eastern and

Western concepts of learning complicate the universalization of creativity in existing research.

Her bookCultural Foundations of Learnings hightlights three fundamental contradictions

between Western learning and Chinese learning, which she argues can be extended to Eastern

learning as many Eastern countries share with China Confucian traditions.

First, the paradox of education, as captured in Platos quote compulsory learning never

sticks to the mind, does not seem to be a paradox within the Eastern tradition. In her book, Li

clearly explains this stark contrast by comparing Western learning tradition, as explained by

Plato and ancient Western philosophers, and Chinese learning tradition, as expressed in

Confuciuss thinking. Learning, according to Confucius, is a process of perfecting virtues and

enduring hardship rather than a process of mastering the universe and cultivating the mind (Li,

2012, p.37). He also thinks that learning is not a choice it is a gift. An ideal Chinese learner,

just like Confucius who had his heart and mind set upon learning from the age of 15, should

make a life-long commitment for learning and embrace learning no matter what. Thus, the idea


27/15722

of compulsory learning being a problem as posed by Western scholars does not resonate well

with Eastern tradition, or at least Chinese tradition.

Second, Deweys concept of a child-centered education seems to contradict another

fundamental value placed in the Chinese learning process: respect for teachers. In Lis words:

As a learner, particularly a beginner, one has much to learn. Respect for the teacher

makes the learner receptive to the teachers guidance. One needs to put ones ego aside in

order to make a sincere commitment to learning. The pupil is not an equal peer to the

teacher (Li, 2012, p.51)

Lis quote highlights letting go of ones ego and respecting the teacher, which seem to go

against the idea of a child-centered education: in the Confucian tradition, at the center of

education stands the teacher who is supposed to know better, not the child who is just a

beginner.Li argues that while a Western learner might view this as sign of obedience, docility,

or lack of critical thinking, a Chinese learner views it as a virtuous characteristic in line with his

or her morale (p.51).

And third, Lis book poses a very interesting phenomenon, which she calls the

paradoxical Chinese learner (Li, 2012, p.72). That is, despite many criticisms on the current

Chinese pedgagogy that is old-fashioned, teacher-centered, authoritarian, with a centralized

curriculum implying inflexibility and lack of attention to individual childrens learning needs,

Chinese learners and Asian learners, including Asian imigrants in developed countries, continue

to achieve well in comparision to their Western peers in the same countries! To Li, the Asian

achievement and performance have a lot to do with their learning beliefs under the influence of

the Confucian learning tradition (p.82).


28/15723

The compromise: toward a more culturally relevant framework within the Vietnamese context

While compelling, Lis critiques are inadequate in and of themselves: first, there seems to

be a heavy emphasis on Chinese tradition, as Confucius himself is after all a Chinese philosopher.

In the context of other Eastern countries, such as Vietnam, the extent to which Confucian

thinking makes an impact on students learning beliefs and learning process is less clear.

Similarly, many emerging research on creativity in Eastern countries, such as Lui, Hau and Ng

studies in 2004, are conducted in a few Chinese-speaking countries, such as China, Hong Kong

or Singapore, which cannot represent Eastern countries as a whole. Second, Lis arguments do

not seem to directly address the role of creativity within an Eastern context. As explained earlier,

the focus on creativity is justified on two grounds, namely pedagogical reason and economic

reason. Especially with regard to the argument that a creative workforce might be what a more

globalized world needs, there has to be more research that focuses on this aspect of creativity.

Presumably, the arguments about the universalization of creativity made by those aformentioned

researchers stems from many compelling convergence theories, such as Meyers (1979) concept

of the universalization of education. Meyer claims that there is a tendency for all national

educational systems in the world to converge toward a common structure and set of practice

(Ginsburg, 2012). Similarly, other authors mention how less developed industrialized nations

face greater global pressure toward convergence, which results in their borrowing of structures

and practices from the more developed nations (Inkeles and Sirowy, 1984).

Thus, this back and forth debate on universalization of creativity adds nuances to my

exploration of Vietnamese student creativity. The case of Vietnam will serve to confirm, negate

or at least complicate this generally accepted claim on the universalization of creativity by

looking specifically at whetherand how Vietnamese students express it. Additionally, my solid


29/15724

background on Vietnamese culture serves as a cultural filter for my assessment. That is, my

personal judgment of what creativity entails plays an important role in this evaluation.

Theoretical Propositions

In summary, the above literature review has situated my study within the existing

scholarship on creativity and education. From it, I was able to extrapolate predictions for my

three research questions: 1. Are Vietnamese students creative, and to what extent?; 2. What

explains the differences in student creativity? And 3. Under what conditions, or what kind of

learning environments, does student creativity flourish?

As derived from literature review, my three main theoretical propositions are: 1.

Vietnamese students are capable of being creative; 2. Learning environments, especially the role

of the teachers, explain the differences in student creativity and 3. Under a more open learning

environment , students tend to show more traits of creativity. As mentioned in the second part of

literature review, these are propositions drawn from Western tradition of research, thus I will

keep in mind any cultural nuances in my actual assessment of each construct.

To assess student creativity, I use a modified framework from Torrances four-

component criteria, with an added element of agency. Students perception is the ba sis of my

assessment, as literature has shown that the biggest flaw in research on assessing creativity to be

the lack of focus on students voice. My judgment of how open the learning utilizes Urbans

criteria with some modification and simplification.8

Particularly, I make an effort to adjust the

framework according to culturally appropriate norms and according to my interpretation of

students own perspectives.

8 For a more detailed description of the modified version of Urbans framework, see appendixE


30/15725

Limitations9

This thesis faces several limitations.

First, although the results of this study could be generalized to existing theories on

creativity in education, they cant be generalized to larger population. Due to the nature of a case

study, there might be a reason to suspect that our research selectively attracts a very particular

group of students. Similarly, the two schools that I chose to conduct research (see chapter 4) are

not necessarily representative of all schools in Vietnamese educational system. However, as

explained in my method chapter, I attempt to mitigate this limitation by adopting a wide variety

of methods (including interviews, surveys and classroom observations) and triangulation of data.

At best, the biggest contribution of my study lies in its questioning of current understanding on

creativity in education and how further study might want to proceed.

And second, as pointed out in the literature, assessing creativity is extremely challenging

and even when it is possible, it could not be standardized (Craft, Jefferey, & Leibling, 2001).

This happens because unlike intelligence, creativity could only be relatively measured through

subjective measures (as opposed to test scores). Furthermore, as explained in the section on

culture, creativity as a culturally sensitive topic necessitates a culturally appropriate assessment.

However, to date, most evaluations of creativity have heavily depended on that of the West, and

even the studies with an Eastern focus only make modifications and adjustments instead of

radically different measures. Although I attempt to vary these measures base on my personal

understanding of the Vietnamese culture as well as its educational system, the accuracy and

representativeness of my analysis depends heavily on my subjectivity. I explain in more

extensively length on the limitation of a researchers reflexivity in chapter 2.

9 See chapter 2 for more


31/15726

Thesis Structure

This first chapter, Introduction, poses the crux of this study: an investigation into the

problem of ineffective education and a look at creativity as the potential solution for this problem.

The literature review situates the study in existing research on creativity in education and

provides a general framework of analysis as used in previous studies. This chapter also provides

readers with the 3 main research questions together with the theoretical propositions for each

question based on literature review. Providing the readers with a brief overview of the

Vietnamese education system, this study fills in the gap of existing body of literature with

regards to its lack of focus on students' voice and inadequate attention to cultural variations.

The second chapter, a note on Method, justifies the use of different methods and clarifies

the procedures used to attain results in chapter 3 and 4. Using students' applications for the

Creative Kid Project as a starting point, this chapter delves into the systematic procedure used to

study middle-school students from two of CKP's partner schools in Vietnam and the resulting

comparative case study of these two schools. One important part of this section is the piece on

reflexivity, with reference to my own educational background and the potential effects that might

have on my motivation for this study and my interpretation of the results.

The third chapter presents the Creative Kid Project as a case study for an education

initiative with exclusive focus on creativity. I used students' applications (in the form of survey

responses) to analyze their creativity and answer the first research question: Are Vietnamese

students capable of being creative? I used students' articulation of ideas as a proxy for their

creativity, as the Torrance's framework for assessing creativity has a lot to do with idea creation.

To refine my analysis, I divided students based on ages and school types (explained more in the

chapter). The results show differences in student creativity, particularly between students of two


32/15727

specific schools with very different educational models and between students of different age

(particularly younger middle-schoolers and older middle schoolers). Contrary to my theoretical

propositions (described in chapter 1) students from a perceived open learning environment seem

to show fewer trait of creativity.

The fourth chapter serves as my main analytical chapter where the crux of my argument

lies: This chapter seeks to answer 2 research questions, namely, "what explains the differences in

student creativity?" and "under what conditions/ kinds of learning environment does student

creativity flourish?" in the second stage of the research. As the results from chapter 3 show

differences in creativity traits from students of two distinct middle-schools, this part of the

research takes a closer look at these two schools to explore a potential relationship between

students' learning environment and their expression of creativity. Results from this chapter

challenge the link between open learning environment and high creativity, as described in the

second proposition. Similar to results shown in Chapter 3, students from the experimental model,

or the school that has a more open learning environment according to Urban's framework, tend to

show fewer traits of creativity, paradoxically. One important piece of this chapter is the section I

call "Facets of Creativity". In this section, some of the most interesting tales of creativity emerge,

in rather different and unanticipated forms. I call this form of creativity informal creativity,

which will be discussed further in chapter 5.

The fifth, and last, chapter summarizes the results from both stages of my research and

confirms a paradox: in contrary to the theoretical propositions derived from literature review, a

more open learning environment does not seem to lead to more creativity, as expressed among

middle school students in Vietnam. In this chapter, I bring back the importance of cultural

relevance in analysis as discussed in Chapter 1. Both socio-cultural theorists and Jin Lis


33/15728

arguments make a necessary contribution to my argument: although creativity still finds ways to

express itself, the space, venue and channel through which Vietnamese students express it are

different from what literature suggests, presumably because of a cultural impediment. This

chapter concludes the thesis with suggestions for further study and a reflection on the

development of the Creative Kid Project


34/15729

CHAPTER TWO: Methodological Considerations

I stopped the recording. Thinh quickly glanced at my recorder, pretending that he didn't

just notice that. For the past twenty minutes, he had been rather nervous about the recorder,

frequently glancing at it every two or three minutes.

But the past twenty minutes had been rather disappointing. Thinh didn't say anything

much, and when he did, I could clearly sense how cautious he was in choosing words. He also

seemed agreeable on most of the things I said. "What do you think about the teacher just now?"

"I really liked her!" "Is there anything you want to change about the lesson?" "No?" "Is there

any teacher that you don't like too much?" "Not really

He was clearly uncomfortable. Was that the recorder? Was I intimidating to him? He had

been informed that I was just researcher wanting to learn more about his experience in school.

Would he be more open to me if I had not told him that? Or was he just generally shy to people?

Did it have anything to do with the fact that he studied in a non-specialized classroom?

I kept listening to his sporadic responses. But in my mind, those questions kept bothering

me. Finally, I stopped the recorder, making it as clear as possible to him that what he said might

no longer be used.

And to my utter surprise, our real conversation started then. I just wish I had the recording of it.

This chapter gives readers an extensive overview of the procedure I used to carry out this

research, including two stages: the immersion/exploratory stage and the investigation/fieldwork

stage. This chapter also describes the intricacies and difficulties of carrying out research, with

regard to my own background and identity as a Vietnamese student and a researcher.


35/15730

My study includes two stages: the first one is the immersion stage, in which I explored

different topics in creativity and education by studying the perspectives of participants in the

Creative Kid Project, CKP (see more detail below). This first stage answers my first research

question: Are Vietnamese students creative? It also suggests a possible answer to the second

research question "what explains student creativity" to be "school learning environments". The

second stage further examines the role of school learning environments on student creativity, by

comparing students from two middle schools in Vietnam. I chose these two schools because of

the different levels of creativity expressed by their students. This stage directly addresses the

question "What explains student creativity" and "under what conditions does student creativity

flourish?"

Stage 1 - The Immersion: Are Vietnamese students creative?

Throughout the preparation and organization of CKP in summer 2012, not only did I

have the chance to engage in direct interaction with the participants of my research but also to

take a first look at the general problems as well as opportunities facing Vietnamese education, as

demonstrated or implied by these students. The middle school students who participated in the

six-day long program went through an online application process and two interviews: the 28

finalists were chosen from a total of seventy-six candidates from 10 different schools. The

readily available data I have are from the detailed applications (in survey form) of a total of 76

participants from the first-round application (See Appendix C for application questions).

In this exploratory stage, I analyzed application responses from middle-school candidates

to test the first theoretical proposition, namely Vietnamese students are capable of being

creative. Although I did not collect their responses scientifically (rather, the responses were


36/15731

used to select participants for CKP program), the richness of their responses allowed me to

explore their creativity through the way they express their ideas as well as the relationship, if any,

between the type of school they go to and their expression of creativity. I analyzed their

perceptions of schooling as well as assessed their creativity as shown in the questions that asked

them to come up with ideas, based my modification of Torrances (1976) framework (see

Chapter 1). The format for these applications is in Appendix C.

From the findings of these initial analyses, I then distinguished two schools where

students exude the greatest differences in their expression of creativity. This led me to explore

the second proposition that differences in creativity could be explained by differences in learning

environment, particular the type of schools that students go to. The natural next step was to study

the two schools and understand the learning environment in these two schools.

Stage 2 - The Investigation: how does learning environment influence student creativity?

The role of Case study

In this stage, I conducted a comparative case study of two middle schools (explained

later) to examine my second and third theoretical propositions, namely: 1. Learning environment

correlates with student creativity and 2. More open learning environment and/or more open

teachers correlate to greater creativity.

I chose to conduct two parallel case studies because of the nature of my research

questions as well as the unique position of my study within existing scholarship on creativity in

education. First, in analyzing learning environment as one possible construct of my analysis on

creativity, I need an analytical tool to cover contextual conditions (the learning context) as well

as the phenomenon itself (the learning process). As such, case study serves as the best strategy


37/15732

for me to investigate a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when

the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident (Yin, 1994). Second,

this method helps me mitigate the weaknesses of the frameworks drawn from literature. As

described in chapter 1, most of the research on creativity has utilized Western frameworks that

are more appropriate in Western context. Thus, the use of case study is even more pivotal in my

own study of Vietnamese students: as I choose student creativity and learning environment as the

two main constructs of my study, this method allows me to take into account many of the social,

historical and cultural boundaries that make up the context of these two constructs.

Experimental School and Traditional School

The two schools that I choose to study and discuss in chapter 4 are the focal point of my

study. I choose these two schools for a variety of reasons, which I will discuss in great length in

Chapter 4 under the History and Culture Section.

First, these are the two schools with the largest number of applications for the Creative

Kid Project (see chapter 3). Thuc Nghiem Middle School (Experimental School from this point)

is in fact the host school that provided venue and facility for our 6-day long program. My

familiarity with the school granted me easy access to the school administrators and teachers as

well as an initial understanding of the general culture and environment of the school. Likewise,

Trung Vuong Middle School (Traditional School from this point) is the school with the second

largest number of participants. Many of Traditional Schools teachers and students have helped

me in the process of organizing CKP as well as sustaining students projects after the program

was over.


38/15733

Second, both Experimental and Traditional School are prestigious middle schools in

Vietnam that are perfect for my quest to find a solution for ineffective education in Vietnam.

Located within 15 minutes from each other in the central of Hanoi, both schools are very well

known among Vietnamese parents and their models are constantly compared against each other

in newspaper and popular discourse. While these two schools will not tell me stories of

Vietnamese education as a whole, they serve as some of the best cases to study in the context of

a reforming educational landscape in the country. That is, these will be the schools with the most

favorable conditions to adopt new educational strategies and initiatives. In the case of

Experimental School, this is the one school with a distinct model from the rest of the public

school system in Vietnam. In the case of Traditional School, it has always been the first school to

adopt any new policy from the Ministry of Education and Training (see chapter 4).

While sharing many comparable features, these schools possess strikingly different

characteristics with regard to philosophy of education, pedagogical focus and student body. As I

will explain in the discussion on school history, culture and overall environment, Traditional and

Experimental School offer me with ample opportunity to present a detailed analysis on the

effectiveness of each model on students and student creativity, if any.

Triangulation of method

To reach a comprehensive understanding of the "learning environment" in the two

schools, I relied on three methods, namely classroom observation, interviews and surveys

(method triangulation) and three kinds of study subjects, specifically administrators, students and

teachers (subject triangulation) as part of my comparative case study (See table 2.1). While each


39/15734

method has its own strengths and limitations, they supplement each other and together help me

gain a more holistic understanding of each school's learning environment.

Table 2.1: Overall of Methods used

ClassroomObservations

StudentSurveys

StudentsInterviews(groups/

individuals)

TeachersInterviews

AdministratorInterviews

Traditional

School

Nine 50-

minute classes

63 32 (248) 5 1

Experimental

School

Eight 45-

minute classes

50 24(1113) 5 1

Administrator Interviews10

Administrator interviews are extremely helpful in providing me with the historical

background and general features that make up their unique school culture. In my one-hour-long

interview with the vice headmaster in each school, I asked them to explain their philosophy of

education, the uniqueness of their schools, their perceptions and evaluations of the teachers and

students, their aspirations for the development of the schools, and their personal story as the

administrator of each school. My questions in effect asked them to give a "SWOT" analysis of

their schools, including Strength, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats.11

In both cases, their

responses were rich and nuanced because they had been teachers before becoming administrators.

One limitation is that these administrators speak on behalf of their own schools and generally

have an incentive to provide me with details in favor of their own organizations. Thus, I also

verified their words by asking students and teacher for their opinions on some of the general

remarks and comments made by these administrators.

10 See Appendix D1 & D211 SWOT analysis is used frequently in organizational studies to evaluate an organization/institution effectively.


40/15735

Classroom Observations & Students' surveys12

Classroom observations and students' surveys present me with classroom activities,

teaching and learning styles, and students' perceptions their classrooms learning environment.

As "learning environment" is a complex and multifaceted construct, I adhered as closely as

possible to Urban's framework of open learning environment in constructing the observation log

and survey questionnaires (see Appendix E&F). This framework defines an "open learning

environment" as one that promotes six different areas (divergent thinking, general knowledge,

specific knowledge, focus and commitment, sense of goal and direction, and fun and tolerant

environment) and provides me with concrete, observable classroom behaviors to demonstrate

these characteristics. For a full description of these observable criteria, see Appendix C.

In each school, I conducted 8-9 different classroom observations that varied in subjects

taught, teachers, grade levels and classroom type (see table 2.2). My key contact in each school

provided me with a weekly schedule of every class in the schools, allowing me to strategically

vary my observation subjects.

Table 2.2: Breakdown of classroom observations (based on class type, grades and subjects)

Specialized Non-

Specialized

6t

& 7t

grade

8t

& 9t

grade

Subjects taught

Traditional

School(9

observations

in total)

8 1 4 5 Music, Agricultural

Technology, Physics, CivicEducation, English,

Vietnamese, Math, and

History

(8 in total)

ExperimentalSchool

(8

observations

in total)

N/A N/A 4 4 Music, Geography, Art,Civic Education,

Chemistry, Vietnamese,

Math, and Biology

(8 in total)

12 See Appendix F1& 2


41/15736

In each classroom observation, I used the Urban-criteria for an "open learning

environment" (see appendix for observation log) as a common measure. I paid close attention to

student-teacher interaction, the extent of student's participation, teaching style, classroom

dynamic, and key activities. Thanks to the intensive and interactive nature of the 45-50 minute

lectures, I was able to take notes of events that happened in real time and contextualize what

students, teachers and administrators talked about during their interviews. At the same time, this

method is also limited in several ways: I was unable interpret every detail in a single classroom

observation. Classroom interactions, as it turns out, often center around the teacher, thus

potentially preventing me from understanding what students think, feel and actually do. For

some classes, the teachers and students were actually notified beforehand of my observation, and,

as a result, might have changed their behaviors accordingly. I mitigated these problems by being

as unobtrusive as possible in the classroom. Typically, I would sit at the back and only

introduced myself if notified by the teachers.

After each observation, I distributed about 5-10 surveys to random students or in some

cases, their teachers. I explained the purpose of the surveys and asked them to return the surveys

to me, my contact or their teachers when they finished. I also distributed these surveys even in

classes I did not observe. To further increase the number of responses, I also posted the link

online for students who wished to fill in the online form (See Appendix F1&F2 for Survey

Questions). At the end, I obtained 63 and 50 surveys respectively from Traditional and

Experimental School. Thanks to my strategic outreach method, these surveys varied by CKP

status (whether or not they participated in CKP), grade levels, and type of class, as demonstrated

in the following table.


42/15737

Table 2.3: Breakdown of students surveys (based on class type, age and CKP status)

Specialized Non-Specialized

Younger(6&7

grades)

Older(8&9

grades)

Non-CKP

CKP Total

Traditional

School

43 20 31 32 53 10 63

Experimental

School

N/A N/A 27 23 44 6 50

The survey asked students to answer the questions I used in my classroom observation

(see Appendix E) to describe and evaluate classroom experience and teachers. I then

supplemented these survey answers with my observation records to compare and synthesize my

interpretation of classroom environment and students perceptions of it. As these surveys are

very short and anonymous, they provide me with quantifiable and comparable trends and

patterns between these two schools. Of course, surveys cannot provide me with in-depth answers

or stories, I then turn into my next method, interviews, to complete what surveys cannot do.

Student Interviews

I obtained these interviews through various methods. First, in my visits to each classroom

to distribute surveys, I asked students who were interested to sign up for follow-up interviews

and obtained most interview subjects this way. Second, through snowballing method, I asked

these interview subjects and CKP students to refer me their friends. And lastly, a number of

students also signed up for interviews online, after having filled in the online surveys. At the end,

I conducted 32 and 24 interviews respectively in Traditional and Experimental School. I again

tried to strategically interview students from different classes, grade levels and class type (see

table 2.4)


43/15738

Table 2.4: Breakdown of students interviews (based on class type, age and CKP status)

Specialized Non-Specialized

Younger(6&7

th

graders)

Older(8&9

th

graders)

Non-CKP

CKP Total

TraditionalSchool

23 9 14 18 22 10 32

Experimental

School

N/A N/A 12 12 21 3 24

In these interviews, I asked students to elaborate on their survey responses and tell me

about their experience in schools. As these interviews were meant to capture students'

perceptions of their learning environment as well as to later serve as a measure for their

creativity, I asked them many questions outside of the Interview Question Plan (See Appendix F),

depending on the circumstances. In fact, even the Interview Question plan itself went through

two or three iterations. This iterative process allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of

students' experience. For example, if I saw that one detail kept coming up time and again in

different interviews, I would include that into the next interview.

Depending on time constraints and students' availability, I conducted group interviews in

some cases and individual interviews in others. Interestingly, students seemed more comfortable

talking in groups rather than privately to me. Thus, whenever possible, I encouraged groups of

students to interview rather than asking individual participant who might be intimidated by my

presence.


44/15739

Teachers' interviews13

I interviewed five teachers from each school, four of whom were those whose classes I

observed. I selectively asked a few teachers (with various teaching styles) to interview with me

so that I could gain a better understanding of various teachers' perceptions. As for the fifth

teacher, I asked for recommendation from these teachers or sought a random one on my own.

Table 2.5: Breakdown of teachers interviews based on teaching styles and subjects taught

Style 1:

Interactive

Style 2: neither Style 3: Non-

interactive

Classroom not

observed

Traditional

School

2 1 1 1

Experimental

School

3 0 1 1

In these interviews, I asked teachers to explain and elaborate on what they did in the

classroom, their general teaching style, their perceptions of the school and their own students, as

well as their aspirations and concerns about teaching. Similar with the student interviews, I also

varied interview questions depending on the teachers. Many of the conversations with the

teachers offered me great insight not only into the internal working of the schools but also the

general problems facing Vietnamese education. However, one limitation of these teachers'

interviews is that these teachers are by nature self-selected. Being as busy as they are, those who

agreed to interview with me clearly demonstrated openness and willingness to talk. In fact, in the

case of one of the two schools, I was not welcomed by all teachers and some even deliberately

refused to let me observe their class in the first place. I compensated for this by approaching

students whose teachers I did not interview or whose class I did not observ

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ldao90
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Linh Dao - Thesis on Vietnamese Education

Documents