Thank you so much for starting this discussion, Dr. Behera. However, I apologize for initially only contributing three general thoughts, which I find important for further discussion.

1) You are very right that a controlling (social) environment can massively limit creativity. But it is usually not enough to remove an obstacle. When I release a prisoner's handcuffs, it doesn't mean that he can now paint a creative picture. So it is not only important to remove an (important) obstacle, but also to provide the prerequisites for creativity (such as necessary individual skills). That brings me to my second point.

2) If an obstacle is removed the next one can arise immediately. So if one teacher no longer sets the standards for successful class participation, it could be the peers, for example. Who guarantees that peers will not put more pressure on creative students? We should not jump out of the frying pan and into the fire.

3) Teachers can use leadership to hinder creativity, but also to encourage it. This is nicely demonstrated, for example, by Prof. Eisenberg's research within the framework of learned industriousness theory. So instead of speculating immediately about how we can reduce leadership of teachers, perhaps we should first consider where we can use their leadership?

Thank you so much for starting this discussion, Dr. Behera. However, I apologize for initially only contributing three general thoughts, which I find important for further discussion.

1) You are very right that a controlling (social) environment can massively limit creativity. But it is usually not enough to remove an obstacle. When I release a prisoner's handcuffs, it doesn't mean that he can now paint a creative picture. So it is not only important to remove an (important) obstacle, but also to provide the prerequisites for creativity (such as necessary individual skills). That brings me to my second point.

2) If an obstacle is removed the next one can arise immediately. So if one teacher no longer sets the standards for successful class participation, it could be the peers, for example. Who guarantees that peers will not put more pressure on creative students? We should not jump out of the frying pan and into the fire.

3) Teachers can use leadership to hinder creativity, but also to encourage it. This is nicely demonstrated, for example, by Prof. Eisenberg's research within the framework of learned industriousness theory. So instead of speculating immediately about how we can reduce leadership of teachers, perhaps we should first consider where we can use their leadership?

Tools, approaches, and methods that eschew (or moderate) adult "domination and leadership" in schools to nurture the natural creativity of children are at hand (but need to be popularized). The principles of the SCAMPER technique, for one, were first formally suggested by Alex Osborn and later arranged by Bob Eberle as a mnemonic in 1991 to increase interest in the perceptive, imaginative, and creative abilities of children: the technique uses a set of directed, idea-spurring questions to suggest some addition to, or modification of, something that already exists. (The SCAMPER technique has also received much attention as a learning tool that fosters awareness, drive, fluency, flexibility, and originality.) The stimulus comes from being asked to answer queries that one would not normally pose. The changes that SCAMPER stands for are:

• S—Substitute (e.g., components, materials, people)
• C—Combine (e.g., mix, combine with other assemblies or services, integrate)
• A—Adapt (e.g., alter, change function, use part of another element)
• M—Magnify/Modify (e.g., increase or reduce in scale, change shape, modify attributes)
• P—Put to other uses
• E—Eliminate (e.g., remove elements, simplify, reduce to core functionality)
• R—Rearrange/Reverse (e.g., turn inside out or upside down)

See Article The SCAMPER Technique

Many thanks Dr. Ziegler and Dr. Serrat for moving forward this discussion. I enjoyed reading your comments on the discussion that I have initiated. We all know that children’s voices are potentially productive forces in educational reform. Therefore, it is important to know as to how children experience school where currently power and legitimacy are the preserve of the adults. Majority of the schools do the put emphasis on children’s perspective and experiences. Those schools never conduct child-centered inquiry to improve the teaching-learning environment. Teachers use pedagogy to convey to children what adults select as relevant. Text books are selected by adult based on adult-chosen criteria, without having children’s judgement on the materials. Inside classroom/school, children are asked to be adult-like and to do what they are told to do. Therefore, such a threatening environment never provides them an opportunity to be more productive, innovative and creative. Against the backdrop, my question: will diminishing adults’ domination and leadership in school make students more creative and innovative? I will be very pleased to have your additional inputs.

That is a very interesting question Deepak Kumar Behera . Your question has a Yes and No answer.

NO, diminishing adults and leadership in school will not make students to be more creative and innovative as you can not measure creativity yourself, you need someone to guide you, someone to motivate you in every step you take. Leaders play a crucial role in creative development of students. Students have different thinking skills just like learning style. so if a student is not born creative, that means he /she needs someone to be beside who can transform his/her innovative ideas into reality.

Yes, diminishing adults and leadership in school will make students to be more creative and innovative. Some students prefer initiating their ideas and implement it without being distracted. There are teachers or leaders who like criticizing student ideas, which is not right. so, some students feels so motivated when they are left alone. They prefer coming up with their own ideas and present their final ideas into the teacher or leaders of the school as a surprised. in that way they fell more proud of their work.

Thanks Selma for your interesting remarks. I partially agree with your “yes” and “no” stance. However, my major concern here is “adult dominance“. In the course of providing guidance if the teacher becomes too much authoritarian, that will create a threatening environment. Such adult dominance will contribute to the reduction of children‘s creativity. At the same time, the students in the classroom need some kinds of leadership during the teaching-learning process. Can an alternative model be evolved/suggested to replace the existing one?

Good quality teaching and coaching (intervention) do not depend on age. It is objective. Not every child or young adult can do it on its own. Do they know their goals? Too much intervention and coaching is not good, but students need guidance. A good teacher knows when and where to intervene and how to coach. He or she can see certain patterns students can't see and instructs them about it.

I would approach this from the standpoint of age appropriate discovery... As referenced in an extraordinary amount of literature, children/students have a progression of cognitive development. One method for third grade students would be totally inappropriate for students in grade ten plus. The students at the younger side of the continuum require substantially more guidance in the process of discovery and innovation than students in higher grades. Additionally, the process of discovery and innovation may not be in sync with with "approved" teaching modalities. As a result, this process really starts with teachers because they may feel very comfortable with traditional rote lecture and memorization techniques and not: 1) Understand why they should give up a way of doing business they feel is successful and are comfortable with. 2) They don't have the skills to manage a different classroom environment. 3) There is no reward for changing. And 4) Parents demand education that they are comfortable with. In this case, then the answer to your question whether there a process of diminishing returns in reference to more domination is absolutely correct. On the other hand, Leadership in the classroom is an entirely different subject. If we take the definition of Leadership by Northouse (Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal) then we have a model to define best practices and implement them with the expectation of successful learning outcomes.

Rudi Darson thanks for your reply. Of Course, students need some kind of guidance. However, while providing guidance, the teacher un/knowingly exercise his/her dominance to control the teaching-learning process. We often find an adult-dominated leadership in a classroom which is not very much liked by the students. In such a threatening environment students become less creative and innovative.

Peter de Kam, many thanks for your your wonderful reply. I am impressed. I entire agree with your argument of “diminishing return in reference to more dominance“. However, providing guidance the teacher un/knowingly exercise his/her dominance to control the classroom situation. We often find that the adult-dominated classroom situation is not a proper environment for the grown up children to be more innovative and creative. Rather in a controlled environment (here it is classroom), the dominance and leadership go hand in hand. We cannot keep them in water tight compartment.

You hit the proverbial nail on the head in your last sentence. My own experience in India implementing computer science education in and around Kolkata has proven this out. My experience is that it required a different set of teachers because of the structural and rote learning "mental model" of the existing teaching cadre. We had to take a strict incremental approach with this group of teachers. I want to be explicit and aay there are some teachers who will never be able to operate under this learning approach. On the student side, I suggest they are able to be more innovative and creative BUT they need to receive guidance and be allowed to experiment without fear of failure to a certain extent because they still need to experience consequences for the choices they make. I don't believe it's an either or situation. It's a continuum, (sliding scale) of responses and consequences appropriate for level of the students competency in innovation and learning regardless of their grade level.

I hope this helps