TEACHER’S CREATIVITY / STUDENT CREATIVITY: BUILDING A NEW MODEL
Abstract
The process of creativization of higher education began at the turn of the millennia, when it became obviousthat the society’s demands for the quality of the educational process have changed significantly, and it wasno more impossible to consider the effectiveness of educational reforms through the old prism of “success”identification. On the other hand, the intensification of globalization trends has led to a few changes inthe nature, structure of teaching, content and competencies of graduates, which fully reflects the processes of internationalization, digitalization, taxonomization, securitization and mental-cultural transformationalrelations.As a result of such contradictory processes, there was an intensification of competition between highereducation institutions and their competition for creative teachers, higher education students, for the administrativestaff, which consolidated and harmonized activities ensured the prestige of the university, its rating, as well asthe ability to win grants, take part in international projects etc.Numerous attempts of some authors have brought the theoretical basis for understanding the phenomenonof creativisation of the educational process, though they were not always successful and required a systematicapproach to performance analysis.An important theoretical achievement of scientists at the beginning of the new millennium wasthe interdisciplinary approach to understanding the integrity of the creative process and the paradigmaticfeatures that take over sciences related to pedagogics: psychology, philosophy, sociology, economics.The article proves that the key participants in the modern educational process are teachers and students,each of whom has a different creative level, and therefore different preferences and expectations. Thus,the harmonization of relations between the participants of the educational environment can, on the one hand,ensure successful networking and collaboration, but on the other hand, in the case of large-scale miscalculations –conflict and singularity of educational-scientific reproduction.The author identifies creative features of teachers and graduates and establishes trend models of theirpossible interaction (internationalization of competencies, globalization of “feelings”, digitalization of learning,taxonomy of learning content, securitization of interests, cognitive dissonance).It has been proven that joint platforms covering various types of activities of process participants, particularly,the creation of start-ups, can be successful.
References
2. Вікрі К. Нетворкінг для інтровертів. Поради для комфортної комунікації. Харків : Vivat, 2020. 224 с.
3. Гагоорт Г. Менеджмент мистецтва. Підприємницький стиль. Львів : Літопис, 2008. 360 с.
4. Драйден Г., Вос Дж. Революція у навчанні. Львів : Літопис, 2011. 542 с.
5. Казанова Х. По той бік секуляризації: релігійна та секулярна динаміка нашої глобальної доби. Київ : Дух і літера, 2017. 262 с.
6. Кастельс М. Інтернет – галактика. Київ : Ваклер, 2007. 292 с.
7. Макафі Е., Бріньолфссон Е. Машина, платформа, натовп. Як приборкати наше цифрове майбутнє. Київ, 2019. 336 с.
8. Поляков М. Ноосферний підхід до розвитку пізнання і господарства. Дніпро : Нова ідеологія, 2017. 111 с.
9. Робінсон К., Ароніка Л. Школа майбутнього. Львів : Літопис, 2018. 256 с.
10. Роймер Й. Homo urbanus. Парадокс еволюції: монографія. Київ : Видавництво Жупанського, 2017. 271 с.
11. Флорида Р. Homo creativus. Як новий клас завойовує світ. Київ : Наш формат, 2018. 441 с.
12. Giles D. Psychology of the Media. London : Penguin Macmillan, 2010. 230 p.
13. Howkins J. The creative economy. How people make money from ideas. London : Penguin Book, 2007. 270 c.
14. Rogers E. Diffusion of innovations. New York : Free press, 2003. 551 p.