The problem of creativity institutionalization at the university entails an identification and building a model of interrelated socio-epistemic structures, functionally ensuring creative activities of a heterogeneous subject of cognition in line with the university’s academic missions. The paper gives a socio-philosophical analysis of transformation of the creative-type cognitive relationship in the process of University 3.0 historical development. The author classifies the approaches to the definition of creative spaces and outlines the main provisions of the author’s concept of creativity institutionalization in (...) a modern university. It is shown that the creative function of a modern university develops under the influence of public expectations, economic conditions and new technologies that call for effective educational environments, innovative learning methods, new forms of literacy. The author distinguishes four historical stages in the University 2.0, which differ in types of creative activity of a subject of cognition with respect to learning and research: education as the comprehension of truth, conjunction of research and teaching, conjunction of research and learning, learning through scientific researches. It is shown that University 3.0 takes its origin at the end of the 20th century as a result of commercialization of scientific researches, where scientific- and socialentrepreneurial creativities are added to various types of educational and scientific-research creativity. The paper presents the approaches to conceptualization of creative spaces at the University: environment model, model of cognitive processes, complex “environment as a mode of cognition” model. The concept of generativity is a core element of the author’s model of creative space, which is applied as a social-epistemological characteristic to the processes of learning and the environment of cognition. The creative space is deemed as a cognitive-generative system that interconnects creative-type cognitive processes with the cognitively active environment. (shrink)

Journal of Philosophy of Education, EarlyView.

In recent decades, the shift towards the “learnification” of educational discourse has de facto reframed educational purposes and schooling practice, thus reframing what students should know, strive for, and, in a sense, be. In this paper, given the efforts to disrupt the dominance of learning discourse, I seek to engage regarding a specific concern, namely, the progressive removal of imagination within educational official framework. Indeed, imagination has virtually disappeared from the documents, publications, web pages and recommendations of major educational agencies (...) and institutions worldwide, with important and potentially damaging consequences for schooling, teaching and learning. Employing a Deweyan perspective, I argue that imagination plays a crucial role in the creation of pivotal educational features and phenomena, such as knowledge, inquiry, choice and deliberation, critical agency, meaning creation, and, importantly, the openness of possibilities. Therefore, the eclipse of imagination becomes, at the very same time, the eclipse of education; nurturing imagination is about nurturing education. (shrink)

Journal of Philosophy of Education, EarlyView.