CREATIVITY AS A COMPETENCY IN BOLOGNA: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

CREATIVITY AS A COMPETENCY IN BOLOGNA: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS Consuelo Martínez Priego1, Belén Poveda García-Noblejas2 1

2

Universidad Panamericana. Campus Guadalajara (MEXICO) Centro Universitario Villanueva. Universidad Complutense de Madrid (SPAIN)

Abstract The objective of this paper is to describe creativity as a competency in the context of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), and show some of its limitations and risks if it is understood as an end (final end) of the educational action. It is, therefore, a critical analysis from the perspective of the aims of education (teleology) and of creativity as a generic competency of primary importance. The conclusion is that the notion of final end must be articulated with competencies (partial ends) so that they do not substitute each other. This is justified by the educational requirement of the person itself, which is not a way, but an end of the educational action. Keywords: Competencies, Creativity, Bologna, Educational purpose.

1

INTRODUCTION

The current context, dynamic, changing, new in challenges, requires university training in order to deal with these situations. This considers creativity as something exceptional within educational purposes. However, we understand that how creativity is understood in the context of the Bologna declaration must be subjected to critical analysis. This is the aim of the present investigation. In particular, we considered the following issues: 1. Understand the Bologna Declaration about creativity. 2. In what ways can creativity be understood, based on recent research. 3. What is an educational purpose and 4. To what extent is creativity an educational purpose or of what nature is creativity as an end. In short, if all that Bologna hosts creativity means and can provide students.

2 2.1

CREATIVITY IN THE BOLOGNA DECLARATION General characteristics of the Bologna Declaration and university mission

The origins of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) are in a tendency of thought led by the events of World War II. This raises the need to promote a common culture and an attitude of cooperation between the people of the Old Continent. It was the motive that drove Europe to the development of many treaties, declarations and agreements with the aim of achieving a universal culture in the economic, political and social spheres. More specifically, in education, the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 is one of the first steps towards the EHEA; Moreover, it is the beginning of a new stage in the educational politics of the European Union. A few years later the EHEA is delimited in the Declaration of Sorbonne in 1998; that was the beginning of a political process that seeks to regulate and unify higher education in Europe. Later, with the Bologna Declaration (1999) this process is consolidated and expanded, taking shape with the Salamanca Convention and the Prague Declaration (2001), the European Council in Barcelona (2002), the Convention on Institutions of Higher Education Graz, the Berlin Conference (2003), the Bergen Declaration (2005), the London Declaration (2007), the Declaration of Leuven (2009), Budapest Declaration (2010) and the Bucharest Declaration (2012). Going back to the Bologna Declaration, six objectives were required (Naval, Sobrino & Pérez , 2006): The adoption of a system of easily readable and compatible degrees; the adoption of a system based on two consecutive levels that result in three different degrees; the establishment of a credit system the ECTS system- as a means to promote student mobility; promoting mobility and removing

Proceedings of EDULEARN15 Conference 6th-8th July 2015, Barcelona, Spain

1968

ISBN: 978-84-606-8243-1

obstacles to the exercise thereof by students, teachers and staff; promoting European cooperation in regard to quality assurance for the development of comparable criteria and methodologies; promoting the European dimension of higher education and, in particular, curriculum development, institutional cooperation, mobility schemes and integrated study, training and research programs. These documents that support the convergence process, in addition to staking out a series of actions to be carried out within the university, are also looking to change and improve teaching. This is reflected in documents that support the process of convergence, referring to the main objectives. It is necessary to point out: first implement a system of higher education focused on learning; and secondly, to promote a higher education system based on the achievement of professional skills. In this way, "the university must transmit the necessary knowledge to problem solving, enabling students to adapt to the implementation of various tasks" (Naval, et al., 2006, p. 266).

2.2

Creativity from the Bologna Declaration: creativity as competency

There are many contributions made about creativity through the prism of the changes suggested from the beginning of the new European Higher Education. In this context some research undertaken in relation to the powers of the teacher in general, among which three of them stand out for the way they envision creative competency within the structure that determines each as essential: Weganaar Gonzalez (2003) in the Tuning Project, contemplates creativity as one of the essential skills that a teacher must acquire. His research encompassed graduates, employers and employees, with the aim of establishing a general profile of the teacher; ANECA (2004), and other authors such as Villa and Poblete (2007) consider creative competency as a relevant competency both to determine the profile of the teacher, as the face of their training. Therefore, consideration of creativity in the university framework has had and still has great relevance. In this panorama, learning and skills assessment has become the central point and directly affects the quality of the educational program. But nevertheless, it can be observed that creativity as a university competency in the curriculum has no proportion to the size previously given presence. Some authors, such as Porto (2008), reveal that gap, particularly in the new curriculum of the Spanish universities. It is surprising how, from the Tuning Project, creativity has been seen as a generic competency to develop in all students, whatever their field of study. Moreover, that the way in which it is included among the competencies to be developed in graduate studies in Spain is much lower than one would expect.

2.3

Creativity as a competency in university

Following the contributions of Riesco (2008, p. 88), "competencies are a combination of knowledge, skills (intellectual, manual, social, etc.), attitudes and values that will enable a graduate to successfully undertake troubleshooting or intervention in a certain academic, professional or social context". The proposal from the Tuning Project classifies them into two blocks: the transversal and specific skills. In turn, the latter are classified as: instrumental, interpersonal and systemic. In the systemic, the creative competency is included. As Porto (2008) points out, this is an essence competency which allows us to "discover and solve problems in different situations and contexts in the performance of any profession and must be located in training for a changing society, promoting the overall development of the citizens" (p.80). However, despite progress, we ascertain that learning and evaluation of the creative competency are not certainly achieved in the university classroom.

3

RECENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CREATIVITY ENVIRONMENT

As Poveda (2014) points out, there is a large body of research showing concern with creativity at the university environment. Authors such as Diakidoy and Kanari (1999), Kay- Cheng (2000), Solar (2000), Alencar and Fleith (2003), Odena (2001), and Allueva Torres (2004), among others, underlined in their research the relevance of the study of creativity and the need to rethink that question in the university environment. Some valuable studies, such as Solar (2000), Csikszentmihalyi (1997) , Paulovich (1993), Tolliver (1985) indicate the difficulties encountered in the context of higher education to promote students' creativity when there are no educational policies that specifically promote these processes. They emphasize also the processes of conservation and transmission of knowledge, where the emphasis is on memorization and repetition of knowledge, and where there is a significant lack of promotion of divergent thinking strategies.

1969

On the other hand, there has been also interesting research showing the reduced contribution of the university education system in the development of creativity (Cheung, Rudowicz, Xiao Dong, & Kwan, 2003; Soler, 2003; Elisondo, Donolo & Rinaudo, 1999). Also important are the contributions of De la Torre and Violant (2006) aiming at providing useful guidelines for teachers to investigate and assess creativity; as well Lopez (2007), Margalef and Alvarez (2005), and Porto (2008), around the need to properly work this competency and its impact on student training. In this line, we will make a brief summary of how creativity can be understood in light of studies around it. Indeed, creativity is a competency in Bologna, but we should know what it is indeed to conclude whether it should be regarded as a competency and its contributions or limitations to the integral development of creativity.

3.1

Creativity as a personality trait

Personality can be understood as "the open system of sufficiently stable features characterizing the operating profile of each person; that is, the set of qualities of the person’s cognitive and tendency dynamics, as well as emotional states. What psychology calls personality, is the operational counterpart of what philosophers call person" (Martínez Priego, 2010, p. 867). Personality as a dynamic system mediating and modulating the subject’s personality, presupposes the temperamental traits and character. It is largely dispositions, ways of facing reality which are unlearned, but received and related to the psychosomatic structure itself. To the same extent that creativity is seen as a personality trait –creative personality -, it is attributed character of innate quality, not subject to change, therefore, not properly educable. It is a trait which "is born" or "not born". There is certainly predispoción in subjects to face the novelty in a more or less successful way, but it seems that this is all that can be said about creativity. Studies linking creativity and personality may have this difficulty, although not all authors have a deterministic view of personality, it is a possible difficulty if creativity is only seen from this perspective. Thus, the relationship between creativity and personality has been conspicuously present in the minds of researchers. Some of them, like Corbalan, et. al (2003) point out that creativity owes its history and profile to the personality, defined by a series of features. Also Rodríguez Estrada (2005) clusters the features of the creative personality in terms of three aspects: cognitive, emotional and volitional. The first reference to the strength of perception, intuitive ability, imagination, critical thinking and intellectual curiosity; the second relates to self-esteem, looseness and freedom, passion, boldness and depth; and the third one that alludes to tenacity, frustration tolerance and the ability of decision this point will be discussed further on-. Others have tried to point out the characteristics of creative people, like Lopez Martinez, Corbalan, & Martinez Zaragoza (2006) who note as defining: the knowledge that they possess creativity, originality, independence, risk taking, personal energy, curiosity, humor, attraction to novelty and complexity, the artistic sense, open-mindedness, the need to be alone and a more developed perception. That is, it comes to features that can be understood as belonging to the personality and are therefore more stable and innate than learned. Interesting is the inclusion of securities in the classification of "creative people". De la Torre (2003) identifies four categories that manifest creative potential: the creative genius -with exceptional qualities for the creation-; the creator person -one who has shown his creativity in value realizations-; the creative person -who has a creative potential not fully developed. One that is capable of looking where others already looked and sees what others could not-; and finally the pseudo creative person -one that shows a deceptive or contrary to values creativity. In short, creativity as a personality trait it constitutes an educational budget, not the end of education, precisely because of their unlearned nature.

3.2

Creativity as cognitive style

It is common to associate "divergent thinking" with creativity. Thus, creativity can become reduced to a cognitive style (Gutierrez- Graojos, Salmeron-Vilches, Matín-Romera, & Salmerón, 2013). Perhaps this is the most common consideration of creativity in psychology and education. We point out some of these contributions, all of which can be taken as frameworks for understanding creativity as a competency. In this sense, we must highlight the first contributions of Guilford (1959) regarding the concept of Divergent Thinking. His theory highlights two types of productive thinking, namely two types of thinking of acting in order to generate new information, these are Convergent Thinking and Divergent Thinking.

1970

The first seeks a particular or conventional response, and finds only one solution to problems, usually, a common one. The second type, however, moves in various directions in search of the best solution to solve problems which it always faces as new. In the same vein, Guilford (1950) noted a number of characteristics of creative thinking (divergent thinking): fluency, sensitivity to problems, originality, flexibility, development and capacity for redefinition. Later, Cattell (1971), known for his Theory of Crystallized and Fluid Intelligence, also focused on the study of creativity and drew up a list of the main skills associated therewith. This is similar to Guilford’s listed above, but somewhat longer: "verbal number, spatial, perceptual speed, (identification of figures); closing speed (visual cognition, Gestalt perception); inductive reasoning; deductive reasoning; automatic memory; mechanical knowledge and skill; fluency; ideational fluency; closing restructuring (flexibility closing); flexibility versus firmness (originality); general motor coordination; manual dexterity; ear for music and tonal sensitivity; drawing representational ability; expressive fluidity; motor speed; musical rhythm and tempo; judgment" (Sternberg, & Lubart , 1999, p . 253). Among the pioneers of the study of creativity we also find Torrance (1976), who considered creativity as a set of motivations, skills and abilities that a person puts into action at the moment when faced with solving a problem. He developed the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT), (Torrance 1966) for the evaluation of divergent thinking within the school context. It is based on a number of factors considered as defining creative thought and includes a similar list that Guilford, developed a decade ago, although it is important to note that deleted from this list is redefinition capability. Thus, the factors Torrance takes into account when assessing creative thinking are: sensitivity to problems, fluency, ability to define approaches and flexibility, originality and elaboration. A few years later, Amabile (1983) established the Componential Model, which states that there are three components of creativity: field skills, skills for creativity and motivation in the task. This model was a step forward in the traditional view of creativity, although she noted especially the influence of the environment, proving that this is "a crucial influence on the individual components and the overall process" (p. 23). Thus, she leaves aside the vision focused exclusively on internal individual factors, to place the focus of the study of creativity in social, environmental or personal influences. She says that whatever the scope of dedication, there are three basic components of creativity: field-knowledge skills, technical skills, and required special talent for the field-. The characteristics of cognitive creativity -style appropriate skills, heuristic knowledge to generate new ideas, favorable work style -. The motivation for task -attitudes toward homework, own perceptions of motivation-. De Bono (1986) coined the term "Lateral Thinking" by establishing a difference between it and logical thinking, which he called "Vertical Thinking". He considered logical thinking represented a limitation when searching for solutions to new problems that need new ideas. Thus, Lateral Thinking acts to release the mind of the effect it has on us the easy use of old ideas and stimulates the creation of new ones. This stimulation is thanks to insight, creativity and ingenuity, mental processes that are intimately linked to lateral thinking. Later, Sternberg and Lubart (1991), proposed Investment Theory, in which creativity is considered as an investment from various sources such as intelligence, knowledge, cognitive style, personality, motivation and environment. Today, this perspective provides one model that has attracted the most attention in recent years because of its integrated approach; it gives a holistic view of creativity, and also because of the originality of the approach. A few years later, Csikszentmihalyi (1996) established a Systemic Model, which considered creativity as the result of the interaction of a system composed of three elements: the field of knowledge, the person and the level of accomplishment. For him, the type of creativity that changes some aspect of culture is never found only in the mind of a person, because if it were, it would not be, by definition, a case of cultural creativity. To have any effect, the idea must be expressed in terms that are understandable to others, it must be acceptable to the experts in the field and, finally, must be included in the cultural field to which it belongs. Therefore, the question which arises in this author is not what is creativity? but where is it? In his opinion, the most reasonable answer is that creativity can only be observed in the interactions of a system composed of the three main parts. In short, this approach, besides being widely studied, opens doors to education and to improving creativity. In this context, creativity can be considered a generic or, in some cases, specific competency.

1971

3.3

Creativity and decision making

Psychology has turned its gaze to the human conative dimension in recent years, but has seen that also in this field, creativity plays an important role. However, creativity and ability to make decisions in general, are also implied in classical works. Indeed, in studies which have deepened the knowledge of those mental processes involved in the creative process we find important aspects that are closely related to decision making. Wallas (1926) noted the existence of four stages in the creative process: preparation, incubation, illumination and verification. Previously, Dewey (1910) in " How We Think " was the first to analyze the acts of thought, noting the following: the encounter with difficulty, the location and accuracy of the difficulty, the approach of a possible solution, the logical development consequences of the proposed approach and finally the observations and experiments that lead to the acceptance or rejection of the solution or hypothesis. Three years later, Poincare (1913), like Wallas previously, noted the existence of four moments during the creative process: preparation, incubation, illumination and verification. In the same vein, Hadamard (1945) raised these same four steps that Poincare mentioned in the creative process, describing each of these processes as follows: The period of preparation includes a conscious, systematic and logical approach to the problem. This conscious effort to trigger the unconscious thought process and give it its general direction. Light periods occur in the unconscious, there are many randomly- generated combinations of ideas, but most do not reach consciousness. The last step in the creative process is entirely conscious and involves the assessment of the discovery, checking its value and establishing all its implications. Busse and Mansfield (1981) also propose five key moments in the generation of creative scientific products: selection of the problem, attempt to resolve a problem, restrictions on solving the problem, changing the restrictions, verification and processing. In any case, prior to intelligence work, this cannot occur without the action of the will directed to accepting, deciding and acting on knowledge. The life of each is imbued with situations that are themselves a problem or puzzle to solve, and which require an intellectual clarity and deliberate assessment of the situation, to the effect that the will is or is not directed to solving them. How the decision is made has the nuance of originality given by the fact that we are all novel, which makes what we do new and different from what others do.

3.4

Creativity: quality of products (art)

In the study of creativity there are various ways to systematize the contributions of different authors, one of which is to classify considering four aspects: the person, the product, the process and the context (MacKinnon, 1975; Rhodes, 1961; Mooney, 1963; Brown, 1989). In a way, so far they have addressed some aspects of the creative person –understood as a personality- and also the process related cognitive and conative dimension- . Now we should address the issue of the creative product. On the importance the creative products in human life, the consensus is clear. Nubiola says (2013) "I’m convinced that it is mainly through art that the human spirit can boost his flight in the twenty-first century to overcome the dominant naturalist materialism that reduces human beings to mere biology " (p. 98). Then he proposes art as means to recover freethinking, to achieve higher and better development of the powers and proper human faculties. He says that art and culture are crucial in the development of the individual, in their growth. You cannot ignore these, because without them "free thought disappear, and -as Hannah Arendt would say- our individual lives would become superfluous" (Nubiola, 2013, p. 99). However, it remains clear that the work of art requires creativity in the artist, when it is stressed that only in art is the quality manifested, its scope and possible education are restricted. It might seem that to educate creativity would enhance the creation of works of art, or creative products. It is certainly an access road but not the only one.

3.5

Creativity: life as art

Deeper is the perspective that considers that creativity comes into play in every human life. Art gives us the opportunity to enrich ourselves. It opens the door to contemplation, to that "look openly: look in suspense, that is without intent to understand from the beginning (...); It is to be surprised by the

1972

existence of what we look at, the wealth of content to be progressively discovering" (Carricas, 2013, p. 136). Thus, art is seen as a factor that enhances creativity in one of the deeper meanings: those linking creativity and biography, creativity and person. Art also has the quality to open a person to unrestricted growth -not limited- namely, promoting the growth of the spirit. To the extent that the person establishes a dialogue with the great authors, as you know them, understand them, approach them with real desire to open up the inner reality that has been reflected in an artistic or cultural event, an internal enrichment occurs, that starts in the lower faculties, to soak the higher, that is to say, developing virtues (Velez-Ramirez, 2008). This produces a need to continue to learn more, going deeper. To the extent that the sensitivity is awakened and allowed to enrich the whole being vibrates in this captivating experience, but is not satisfied, seeks more. In this sense Pirfano (2012) understands that: "The possibility of dialogue with the great makes us great, and is an indispensable virtue of the true artist, the faithful and profound interpreter as well as anyone who wants to live a gifted life of depth and richness. If, however, man is used to fighting the “Lilliputians” of his every day – exterior and interior- he runs the risk of ending up himself growing smaller (p. 15). But it can be understood that creative work is not just art created by man but, rather, when the person looks at the world with the eyes of a child, astonished by the smallest and seemingly insignificant things, stopping before each new discovery, reveling in it, stopping at every advance, showing the wonder and joy that involves every achievement, every new discovery; when the person cultivates that new gaze before all things, people, and events then he is able to marvel at the everyday and understand the novelty which occurs every day in himself, in contact with world, with people (Poveda 2014). Life itself brings with it the realization of the new, something creative and unique. Understanding creativity in this way, we cannot say properly, that it is a specific or even generic competency, since it does not seek the "ability to solve problems" but the personal growth that allows writing the only life that everyone has. It is related obviously to human happiness (articulation between virtue and uniqueness of the person).

4

THE END OF HIGHER EDUCATION

This revision of the concept of "creativity" in the context of educational activities must be related to finality, to the purpose being sought in the specific field of Higher Education. In this way we can make a critical reasoned proposal to the Bologna Declaration. True, there is no overall consensus about what the University is and should be; indeed, we could say that is an institution in crisis as postmodern culture itself, culture, as Bauman (2003) points out, is liquid. However, it is possible to provide certain notes or essential features to any university. Cortina’s proposal, as explained by Esteban (2010), focuses on four notes: teaching-learning process, universality, guild and coexistence. Of these four notes, we highlight two of them, since they have been given preferential study by some authors.

4.1

University and education

If we consider the teaching-learning process and coexistence, we find two antagonistic but irreconcilable positions. As for teaching and learning: if one considers the University in classicalhumanistic sense, if one looks at it as a place where effectiveness and efficiency should prevail in the training of students, the university is a place of education. The difference is that in the former case the purely intellectual training premium, while in the second case the highlight is the acquisition of technical skills (Esteban, 2010). On the other hand, if we focus on coexistence as the hallmark of the University institution, whether it is understood as a community that puts its horizons in the culture of science, or if it is considered one in which the main association is the efficiency of the system itself in its social and economic context (Bernal, 2012), that the teacher-student dialogue and educational intention of the first relative to the second is irrevocable (Martinez Priego & Romero, 2014). This forces us to ask what purpose is pursued with education in general and university particularly, or what kinds of purposes exist, in order to clarify the role to be occupied by creativity.

4.2

Partial purpose and final end

It is an idea shared by many, that educational activities are inconceivable outside teleology, the notion of order. Indeed, the purpose of education is to help grow (Polo, 2006); i.e. intentionally seek

1973

improvement and development of the student. Now, the question for the purpose of education can be answered in various ways depending on if we attend to the global sense of action and of each specific action taking place in the teaching-learning process, or to the concrete goals to be achieved in developing the process (Altarejos & Naval, 2003). In the first case, when we talk about meaning of educational action as a whole, we are considering the "final end" of educational activities, which must be related to the end of human life (Alvira, 1988). If we consider the end of human life, either in primary, and secondary or higher education, they have a final similar purpose. And ultimately it will be related to happiness, to virtue, or the growth of the person -according to the anthropological perspective adopted- (Millán Ghisleri, 2015). This final end is necessary and universal, and respects human dignity, because his well-being -his growth- is not subordinate to anything else. There is nothing more important than the individual and his improvement. Once briefly clarified the final end, which should be met immediately so sought with actions specific teaching-learning, ie learning to be achieved. In that case, we speak of "partial end" (Altarejos & Naval, 2000). They have also called goals or objectives. It is learning that seek not because they are important in themselves, but they are useful: they serve for something. That something may be acquiring another learning - in fact, learning is gradual and has a certain hierarchical order-, or make any important action on the professional or social world. Partial aims are "contingent" because they can really be different and not absolute, but relative value to something else. They do not identify with the growth of the person, but that the "products" that the person may provide or make. The partial goals are measurable, final end, no. Properly, the final end gives meaning to the partial purposes.

4.3

Competency as purpose of education

The key issue now is to determine what is a competency and what kind of end it is; that is, if the competency is a final end – it is the meaning of educational action- or rather, it is a partial end; and if it is a partial end, where it is situated hierarchically. Our goal is, of course, to explain the proper place for creativity in Bologna and make a critical analysis. That it is a competency is still very controversial: there is no consensus on its definition. However, some authors have attempted a synthesis (Millán Ghisleri, 2015). On the other hand, we can bring here the universal definition of competence in the OECD. It states that: “A competence is more than knowledge and skills. It involves the ability to meet complex demands, drawing on and mobilizing psychosocial resources (including skills and attitudes) in a particular context “(OECD, 2005). The Council of Europe, for its part, defined it as "the sum of knowledge, skills and individual characteristics that allow a person to perform actions" (Council of Europe, 2002). Obviously, educational objectives are partial ends: they are practical achievements of accomplishments that have observable products: the objective is attained when the product is made observable. However, some have wanted to see as "the end of education" therefore "final end", the ability to face challenges by mobilizing resources, that which allows us to perform actions. And that "can do" is understood as "being competent". It is no longer the product being sought, but the power of the individual to act in specific contexts (Millán Ghisleri, 2015). Two features of skills are interesting for our purposes: first, they do not designate the being of the person, but the actions. On the other hand, competency depends on both the external usefulness or relevance, and the socio-cultural context. What skills should be taught and learned is something contingent. That is, the competency means a "power" that is in the person, but that power is understood as important according to the usefulness of the action. Thus, in the context of education for skills, the person may be considered as a means: the important thing is problem solving and the ability of the person -and the person herself- to this other purpose is subordinate. Ultimately, if the competency is considered the highest, the ultimate purpose of education is reduced to utility. Certainly, objectives rank partial ends lower than competencies; competencies, in turn, have a hierarchy within themselves: some are generic and others are limited to very specific professional contexts. In this sense, creativity could be located, according to the above, as a generic competence – since it manifests itself in many contexts- or as a specific one, because there are areas such as art which seem to require it in a special way. Others, considering novelty as the most important issue in our time, have place creativity as the final end of education. This will be the objective of the following point: the scope and limitations of these contributions. In the distinctly university context, to the same extent that the idea of the university, as a venue for professional preparation is emphasized, creativity tends to be understood as specific or generic

1974

competency. In a humanistic perspective of the university, creativity as inserted into the human cognitive dimension, it could also be understood as generic competency, or end to university education –creative thinking as the final end-.

5

CREATIVITY AS END OF EDUCATION: SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

Creativity is, in the Bologna Declaration, a competency. But creativity as a competency can be understood as: (a) a partial end of lower rank – a non-generic competency linked, for example, to the ability to create works of art-; (b) partial end of higher rank -as a generic competency, which involves applying to any context the ability to solve problems with new ideas- (c) a final end. This latter approach will require further analysis.

5.1

Creativity as a partial end

If creativity is included in the curriculum as a partial end, we run the risk of understanding only as quality of student products. In a certain sense, identifying creativity with the ability to perform artistic works is to consider creativity as a partial end. Also when it comes to any specific cognitive strategy also linked to certain contexts. It has the advantage of operationalizing education which enhances creativity; but it is also true that, especially as it relates to the art, not all students are equipped for it. Thus, this approach approximates creativity related to a personality trait. According to this criterion, we can divide students into creative and not creative, and within the first group would be those that can enhance creativity linked to the creation of purely creative products. Competency can also be seen as a partial but higher-ranked end. This is so when viewed as a generic competency, not as dependent on specific products and, to some extent, related to the ability to cope with the new. However, as with any competency, it does not refer to the growth of the person -of her faculties- but to the operation itself. The competency is defined by its orientation, not by reference to the person herself. This way of understanding creativity becomes once again positive, because it is operational, but it does not exhaust the meanings of creativity we have mentioned. Finally, we must point out that this is the sense frequently given to creativity as a competency by the Bologna Declaration.

5.2

Creativity as a final end: strengths and weaknesses

When creativity is exalted and is held as the highest in education, that to which all educational activity is oriented -either in the school or college-, it is being placed in the proper place for a final end. Indeed, the final end of education to be related to the final end of life; this is similar in the different educational stages. If creativity is more radical, we understand that it has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that the final end of education is linked to the capacity of the person to face what is, generically, always new: to forge his own biography. If this is so, we should seek to provide resources to the student to achieve a full life - that is, it serves an ethical purpose-. However, creativity understood as a personality trait, cognitive style, or quality of the products if it were placed as the final end of education, would be restricting education itself. Creativity, understood in these ways is not the highest, but in any case, the highest is always the person. No particular quality or perfection is greater than the person himself. Otherwise the person and his new life would be taken as a “means" to something else. This leads us to the last point: the relationship between creativity and person.

5.3

Creativity and person

The height of the reflection on creativity is the very notion of person. As Leonardo Polo says: "Novelty is one of the intrinsic characteristics of the human condition. Novelty lies in the human person, herself irreplaceable novelty, who provides occurrences and inventions, and whose life always generates situations and problems which are different, and in some ways, unrepeatable "(1996, p 12). Among the meanings of the term creativity, novelty stands out. Creative is what is new. However, it is called new because it is "originally new". It is called new by virtue of its originality. Seen this way, really new is just the person -every person is unique and is not justified by their biological background-

1975

and only what is originated from it is really new. The challenge of every human life is to live according to what each one is, their own life. That is, is living one's life, the biography, as what it is: new, not like any other. The challenge of living confronts us with the need for maximum creativity. Beyond the common human nature, each one of us is irreducible to others. Precisely for this reason, creativity, if understood in its connection with the person as the new and unique, and who is called to write her own biography, which must always be something new, is really the most important in education in general and university education as well. However, this creativity is neither objective nor competency, but an ethical attitude of the person. This leads to the definition of education proposed by authors such as Thomas Aquinas (Millán Puelles, 1967) who puts the final endl of education in acquiring ethically good habits, virtues. Other authors see that this is necessary condition for personal growth, which is not identical to the development of virtues, but is higher (Millán Ghisleri, 2015).

6

CONCLUSIONS

The study of the background and content of the Bologna Declaration, as well as the recent contributions, demonstrate that creativity is seen as a generic competency. However, this forces us to reflect on how creativity can be understood to see if creativity as a competency satisfies the reality of creativity itself. In that sense, creativity as a generic competency is concerned especially with cognitive ability. That is, as a resource that can grow in the student. However, there are other uses that are not listed in the Declaration: creativity linked to products and, above all, creativity in connection with the person. Only in the latter case would it be justified to understand creativity as the most important end of education, or that which must always be sought. Indeed, if creativity as a generic competency is seen as the final end of education, we are faced with a pragmatic view of education and a utilitarian vision of the person. We would not be considering the person as the highest, but rather what a person can do, -remember that the competency is defined by the problem that can be solved, not by the growth of the person himself-. Therefore, we can conclude that creativity is, in Bologna, a partial end to education, but that in some research it is placed as the final end, with the risks that this entails. It forgets however, to consider creativity as a final end linked to the person and therefore, to the ethical demands of every human person.

REFERENCES [1]

Alencar, E., & Fleith, D. (2003). Barreiras à Criatividade Pessonal entre profesores de distintos niveis de ensino. Psicología: Reflexiào e crítica, 16(1), 63-69.

[2]

Altarejos, F., & Naval, C. (2003). Filosofía de la educación. Pamplona: Eunsa.

[3]

Alvira, R. (1988). Reivindicación de la voluntad. Pamplona: Eunsa.

[4]

Allueva Torres, P. (2004). Desarrollo del pensamiento creativo en el ámbito universitario. Anuario de filosofia, psicología y sociología, 7, 117-130.

[5]

Amabile, T. M. (1983). Social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 997-1013.

[6]

ANECA. (2004). Libro Blanco. Título de Magisterio. Vol. I. Madrid: ANECA. Recuperado de http://www.aneca.es/modal.eval/converdos titulos.htlm.

[7]

Bauman, Z. (2003). Modernidad líquida. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

[8]

Bernal, A. (2012). La universidad como comunidad de diálogo. Bordón, 64(3), 53-63.

[9]

Brown, R. (1989). Creativity: What are we measure? En J. Glover, R. Ronning, & C. Reynolds, Handbook of creativity. (pp. 3-32). New York: Plenum.

[10]

Busse, T.V. & Mansfíeld, R.S. (1980). Theories of the Creative process: A review and a perspective. Journal of Creative Behavior, 132, 91-103.

1976

[11]

Carricas, M. (2013). Descubrir a la persona desde el arte: creación y contemplación artística desde la antropología trascendental. En D. González Ginocchio, & M. Zorroza, Estudios sobre la libertad en la filosofía de Leonardo Polo (pp. 133-145). Pamplona, Navarra: Cuadernos de Anuario Filosófico, Serie Universitaria, 247.

[12]

Cheung, C., Rudowicz, E., Xiao Dong, Y. & A. Kwan (2003) Creativity of university students: what is the impact of field and year of study? Journal of Creative Behavior, 37 (1): 42-63.

[13]

Corbalán, F.J., Martínez, F., Donolo, D. Alonso, C. Tejerina, M. & Limiñana, R.M. (2003). CREA. Inteligencia Creativa. Una medida cognitivo de la creatividad. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.

[14]

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996) Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: HarperCollins.

[15]

Csikszentmihali, M. (1997). Creativity Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Perennial.

[16]

Consejo de Europa (2002). Marco común europeo de referencia para las lenguas: aprendizaje, enseñanza y evaluación. Madrid: Anaya y CVC.

[17]

De Bono, E. (1986). El pensamiento lateral. Barcelona: Ediciones Paidós.

[18]

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Book. (Trabajo original publicado en 1910)

[19]

Diakidoy, I., & Kanari, E. (1999). Student teachers' beliefs about creativity. British Educational Research Journal, 25(2), 225-243.

[20]

Elisondo, R.; Donolo, D. & Rinaudo, M.C. (1999). Ocasiones para la creatividad en contextos de educación superior. RedU. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 4, 1-16

[21]

Esteban Bara, F. (2010). Quo Vadis, formación universitaria. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 247, 461-477.

[22]

González, J., & Wagenaar, R. (2003). Tuning Educational Studies in Europe. Informe Final (Proyecto Piloto). Fase 1. Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto.

[23]

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. The American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.

[24]

Guilford, J. P. (1959). Traits of creativity. In H. H. Anderson & M. S. Anderson (Eds.), Creativity and its cultivation, addresses presented at the interdisciplinary symposia on creativity (pp. 142– 161). Harper, New York: Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

[25]

Gutierrez-Graojos, C., Salmerón-Vilches, P., Matín-Romera, A., & Salmerón, H. (2013). Efectos directos e indirectos entre estilos de pensamiento, estrategias metacognitivas y creatividad en estudiantes universitarios. Anales de Psicología, 29(1), 159-160.

[26]

Hadamard, J., 1945. Essai sur la Psychologie de l'invention dans le domaine mathématique. París: Bordas, 1975

[27]

Kay-Cheng, S. (2000). Idexing Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior: A preliminar validation study. Journal of Creativity Behavior, 34(2), 118-134.

[28]

López, E. (2007). Para lograr mayor eficiencia en el proceso de formación, Revista Institucional Universidad Tecnológica del Chocó: Investigación, Biodiversidad y Desarrollo, 26(2), 110-114.

[29]

López Martínez, O., Corbalán Berná, F. J., y Martínez Zaragoza, F. (2006). Instrumentos y medidas clásicas de la creatividad. En S. d.l. Torre y V. Violant (Dir.), Comprender y evaluar la creatividad. Cómo investigar y evaluar la creatividad (pp. 213-236) Málaga: Ediciones Aljibe.

[30]

Mackinon, D.W. (1975). IPAR's Contribution and study of creativity. En Taylor, I.A; Getzels, J.W. (eds.) Perspectives in creativity. Chicago: Aldine.

[31]

Martínez Priego, C. (2010). Personalidad. En A. González (Ed.), Diccionario de filosofía (pp. 867-871). Pamplona: Eunsa.

[32]

Martínez Priego, C., & Romero, A. (2014). Epistemología del diálogo: condiciones de posibilidad del diálogo científico en el contexto universitario. Conference Proceeding CIMIE14. AMIE. Obtenido de http://amieedu.org/actascimie14/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/priego.pdf

1977

[33]

Margalef, L. y Álvarez, J.M. (2005). La formación del profesorado universitario para la innovación en el marco de la integración del Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior. Revista de Educación, 337, 51-70.

[34]

Millán Ghisleri, E. (2015). Objetivos, competencias y hábitos: una propuesta en torno a los fines de la acción educativa desde la antropología de Leonardo Polo. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

[35]

Millán Puelles, A. (1967). La estructura de la subjetividad. Madrid: Rialp.

[36]

Mooney, R. (1963). A conceptual model for integratins four approches to the indentification of creative talent. En W. Taylor, & F. Barron, Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development. (pp. 331-340). New York: Wiley.

[37]

Naval, C., Sobrino, A. & Pérez, C. (2006). La docencia universitaria. Revista Panamericana de Pedagogía. 259-283.

[38]

Nubiola, J. (2013). Entrevista al filósofo. (Pensarte, Ed.) Livespeaking. reflexiones y diálogos entorno a la creatividad y al arte, 93-100.

[39]

OECD. (2005). La definición y selección de competencias clave. Resumen ejecutivo. Paris.

[40]

Odena, O. (2001). How do secondary school music teachers view creativity? A report on educators' views of teaching composing skills. Symposium: Creativity in Education: perspectives, evaluations and individual development. London: Institute of Education.

[41]

Paulovich, A. (1993). Creativity and gradúate education. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4, 565568.

[42]

Pirfano, I. (2012). Ebrietas. El poder de la belleza. Madrid: Encuentro.

[43]

Poincaré, H., 1913. The foundations of science. Nueva York: Science Press.

[44]

Polo, L. (1996). La persona humana y su crecimiento. Navarra: Eunsa.

[45]

Polo, L. (2006). Ayudar a crecer. Cuestiones de filosofía de la educación. Pamplona: Eunsa.

[46]

Porto, M. (2008). Evaluación para la competencia creativa en la educación universitaria, Cuadernos Facultad de. Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales, (en línea), 35, noviembre. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=18512511007. Acceso: 13 mayo (2015).

[47]

Poveda, B. (2014). La creatividad en la docencia universitaria: Estudio de Caso. Madrid: Universidad Autonoma de Madrid.

[48]

Riesco, M. (2008). El enfoque por competencias en el EEES y sus implicaciones en la enseñanza y el aprendizaje. Tendencias Pedagógicas, 13, 79-105

[49]

Rhodes, M. (1961). An Analysis of Creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305-310.

[50]

Rodríguez Estrada, M. (2005). Manual de creatividad. Los procesos psíquicos del desarrollo. Alcalá de Guadaira (Sevilla): Editorial MAD

[51]

Soler, M.I. (2000). Creatividad: experiencia de las universidades en América Latina. Concepción: Investigación, Universidad de Concepción.

[52]

Soler, M. I. (2003) Creatividad en el ámbito universitario: la experiencia de Chile. Creatividad y Sociedad, 3, 39-45

[53]

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human Development, 34(1), 1–31.

[54]

Sternberg, R.J & Lubart, T.I. (1999) Creativity and Intelligence. En Handbook of creativity.

[55]

Tolliver, J. (1985). Creativity at university. Gifted Education International, 3, 32-35.

[56]

Torrance, E. P. (1966). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking – Norms-Technical Manual Research Edition – Verbal Tests, Forms A and B – Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton NJ: Personnel Press.

[57]

Torrance, E. P. (1976). Students of the future: Their abilities, achievements, and images of the future. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 1, 76–90.

1978

[58]

Torre, S. d. l. (2003). Dialogando con la creatividad. (1a ed.) Barcelona: Octaedro.

[59]

Torre, S. d.l. & Violant, V. (2002) Estrategias creativas en la enseñanza universitaria. Una investigación con metodología de desarrollo. Creatividad y Sociedad, 3, 21- 38.

[60]

Vélez-Ramírez, A. (2008). La adquisición de hábitos como finalidad de la educación superior. Educación y educadores, 11(1), 167-180.

[61]

Villa, A., & Poblete, M. (2007). Aprendizaje basado en competencias. Bilbao: Ediciones Mensajero.

[62]

Wallas, G (1926) The art of thought. Jonathan Cape: London

1979