{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022448979591836733, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0020408163265306124, 'mean_word_length': 5.957446808510638, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Creativity at the Crossroads: Pragmatic Versus Humanist Claims in Education Reform Speeches

Obama's, and other policymakers’, speeches claim that creativity—the ability to derive novel, excellent and relevant ideas and products—is a valuable student asset for the 21st century, but why? Two types of rhetorical appeals to long-held educational values in these speeches are examined: pragmatic claims about student creativity focus on economic recovery, which implies a need to teach and research the link between creativity, academic success and workforce preparation. In contrast, humanist claims about student creativity emphasize a teaching and research agenda of promoting self-realization, cultural identity formation, and aesthetic learning principles, which include empathy and emotional awareness in addition to cognitive aspects of creative thinking and problem solving. These rhetorical appeals are examined in light of education reform and directions in art education.