M.Blake - 870 Discussion
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
Comments are due September 20, 2020 23:59
You've made 0 of the 3 requested
Here’s a link to all of the articles.
CREATIVITY
● All three articles below define creativity differently, including elements/aspects of creative individuals. Which one aligns most with your definition?
● Is there a place for creativity in every academic subject?
I think prior to reading the widely varying ideas related to creativity, the definition I would have used would not have easily applied to all subject areas although with some creativity (ha!) teachers could have likely made it fit. I always associated creativity with aesthetic design and/or artistic ability. What I now recognize is that creativity is multi-faceted and encompasses different ways of thinking from convergent, divergent, and evaluative to considering elements of critical thinking and problem solving as ways to be creative. While some subject areas may fall more to creative products – like fine arts classes – there are many – math, science, language – that would benefit from students who challenge the status quo and think outside the box regarding process and analysis.
Sawyer, K. (2015). A call to action: The challenges of creative teaching and learning. Teacher’s College Record, 117(10), 1-34.
“Ultimately, if our goal is more creative education, we must teach content-area knowledge in ways that prepare students to be more creative using that knowledge” (p.13). “In today’s knowledge societies, schools need to teach content knowledge in a way that prepares students to use that knowledge creatively; and, they need to impart thinking skills, 21st century skills, to students. Most schools have not yet become creative learning environments. Most schools continue to be largely based on an instructionist model of teaching and learning” (p.26).
Schools, if they are to continue functioning, NEED to deliver content required by their supervising body or certifying entity in the most economical method to achieve the results for the greatest percentage of their populations. We, as those who will be dependent upon the functioning capacity of these children, need to assure that they are able to solve new problems which haven’t been imagined yet and to exceed the capabilities of their forebearers. Sawyer states that “creative thinking requires that students create their own knowledge… [which] requires collaborative emergence” (p. 26) and “requires that teachers and classrooms engage in disciplined improvisation” (p. 26). These expectations depart from what is economical because they are time-consuming and require specialized skills not generally taught in teacher education programming. Furthermore, alignment of content requirements when students are creating their own knowledge is tenuous at best and counterintuitive for nationwide school goals. While this position is valuable and brings insight and a better product overall, it is assuredly not needed by the current educational structure which limits content to approved curricula, mandates specific texts, and requires alignment of all teachers and with all standards. Creativity and standards would seem antithetical to one another.
- What is your initial response to this?
- This article talks a lot about the importance of and suggestions for teaching and fostering creativity within education, but is it (only) educators' responsibility to do so?
- Should all educators teach creativity? Foster it?
- This article also discusses whether or not creativity can be taught. Interestingly, it does not differentiate between creative thinking and creativity like we discussed last week. Is it possible to teach someone to be creative? What about creative thinking?
- What is the relationship between collaboration and creativity? Are there examples of when they bolster each other? Hinder?
- Is it possible to assess creative potential? Does this change during a lifespan? Are there other aspects of creativity other than divergent thinking, originality, flexibility, and ideational fluency?
I agree with the idea that most schools are very instructionist and compartmentalized. Schools say they want to be creative yet they still have the same prescribed curriculum that follows a textbook (even though textbooks are not curriculum, but I digress) and has students amble through 45-90 minute classes on a rotating schedule of classes set as a playlist from top to bottom. What schools need is to hit shuffle on the mix and stop separating subject areas. Want to teach real math in a creative way? Partner with the science teacher to bring two subjects together in an authentic experience that asks students to solve problems and get hands out. Want to be more creative with your history lessons? Call up your favorite ELA teacher to bridge the real world with the fictional one in order to build connections and form opinions. Students need to know how to think rather than recite a list of information, which coincidentally is what many of our standards (Common Core or otherwise) are. How can we teach, encourage, foster, or expect creativity when there is a (sometimes exhaustive) list of requirements for each course? Until schools mix up the classes, the hours, the environment, and the curriculum, creativity will continue to be the “one extra” thing that gets dropped on top like a cherry but if it gets left off no one notices. The best way I’ve seen to create a learning environment like this is to literally begin from the ground up. Architects design spaces that have fewer walls and more collaboration space. Curriculum designers create hybrid courses with co-teachers to integrate multiple subjects together. Schools open with this ideal. We cannot make the shift over time easily. We cannot make the shift one at a time easily. We need whole staffs to get on board and jump in together.
While information and communication do not require technology, these aspects can facilitate the process and provide each learner with the same opportunity for voice. Anastasiades (2017) identifies the ODYSSEUS option for collaborative connections. Other such examples are a shared Google Document with comment features and an open discussion forum in which each learner could post his/her thoughts individually and respond to those of others while everyone’s thoughts are presented in the forum. Having a neutral forum for such expression during collaboration allows the child to achieve the variety of aspects of creativity, including innovation/originality, divergent thinking, problem solving, and the safe emotional investment while being open to making mistakes (Anastasiades, 2017, pp. 19-20). This fits well with the collaborative goals expressed by Sawyer (2015) which refer to “improvising together” (p. 15). Collaboration adds an unpredictable quality to the experience. Unfortunately, while much can be learned aside from the content of the exploration, many of these takeaways are lost if not properly captured through reflection, such as recasting disagreements or troubled pathways by a look back to project how things would be different if another solution had been tried.
Hosseini, A. & Watt, A. (2010). The effect of a teacher professional development in facilitating students’ creativity. Educational Research and Reviews, 5(8), 432-43.
This study used a creativity-oriented professional development program to increase teacher knowledge of creativity so that they can then apply it to their classrooms. They emphasize the process of creativity and its related skills - like applying creativity to real world contexts - rather than creativity.
- Is it possible to train people in creativity so that they can then teach it to others? What flaws do you see in this approach?
- What is more important, creativity or creative thinking?
- Can creativity be applied in all real world contexts?
Jaeger, G. J. (2016). Preparations for the New: Reaching and Teaching Creativity with Adaptive Technologies. Educational Technology, 56(6), 24-31.
- Being open to new experiences is an aspect of creativity. Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Explain.
- What role does technology play in teaching and/or fostering creativity?
We pull from our experiences in all that we do. It would be difficult at best to look at something and imagine what it could be without relying on past experiences. In order to build our knowledge base to draw from we need to be open to new experiences and be willing to engage in them.
Yes you have to be open to new experiences to be creative. If you get stuck in the traditional simply for the sake that it’s what has always been done, then nothing can change or grow. We use those past experiences as Nancy said, but we have to be willing to take a chance on something new.
A lot of these articles (from everyone’s discussions) have talked about how important it is to learning from failure and being okay with failing, but one has to put him/herself in a position to fail first. I think being open to new experiences means being vulnerable and going into an experience knowing there’s a chance of failure…and learning from it when it happens.
I lean heavily toward creativity being supported and fostered as opposed to taught. In order to provide the environment and opportunities for creativity, we need to examine the roll of technology in today’s classroom. Does it help or hinder? I can see cases where it supports creative thought, particularly in collaborative work. But there certainly seems to be times where it hinders as well. Part of creativity lies in imagining. As Mike mentioned in class last week, we first start to imagine when we read a story. Technology can take this step away as it easily allows us to find digital renditions of scenes that we would historically have imagined. I think the roll of technology is still being explored and that will need to continue as tech is often one step ahead of us.
My students ran a simulation this week in which they were 14-year-old apprentices in 1770 Boston, where they witnessed the Boston Massacre and several related events which preceded it. For them to read a story about it, they would not have been likely to cast it with an authentic background which lent depth and richness to the experience. In simulations like Second Life or even online game scenarios, participants benefit from the opportunity to be creative and pursue different options without the high-stakes of living with the consequences of their choices. They can simply restart or select a new avatar and try a different method.
LeAnne, do you think we see the value of these experiences because we didn’t grow up immersed in a world of technology and the opportunity for these experiences? I think of my students and even my own children, and they are just not self-aware when it comes to skills they are using (or can use), such as starting over and trying new approaches. They don’t see how this can be applied elsewhere in life, or even while using other technology tools.
NEW LITERACIES
Cervetti, G., Damico, J. & Pearson, P. D. (2006) Multiple literacies, new Literacies, and teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 45(4), 378-386.
- This article focuses on the role of social and cultural contexts and the social processes relevant to multiple/new literacies as well as the importance of educators viewing literacy in this way (page 380 does a good job of explaining this). It also references assessment and “judgement of capability.” How should teachers assess students’ mastery of multiple/new literacies? How can they assess their own teaching of it?
- The authors encourage preservice teachers to embrace multiple/new literacies (their own and students’) over traditional literacy, and provide examples and reasoning for this. Is there a place for traditional literacy? Should this be abandoned in formal education?
- If “teacher education has played a conservative role, not in the political sense of being antiliberal but in the sense of conserving or perpetuating the prac-tices of the past” (p.384), then is this an ideal place to implement new pedagogical shifts, or would PD for practicing educators be more effective? This is interesting to look at in relation to Voogt et al.’s section on teacher learning on pages 409-410.
Cope,B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). Multiliteracies: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4, 164–195.
- What is education’s “role in underwriting equity/ equality” (p.168) and can an emphasis on multiliteracy help bridge the gap?
- Teaching multiliteracies requires students to have more power and freedom, but this leads to “layers upon layers of difference” and diversity (p.173). Do you find this to be true?
- Respond to this: “Learning is a process of self-re-creation. Cultural dynamism and diversity are the results” (p.184).
Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to learning and schooling in the digital networked world of the 21st century. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 403-413
- Do you agree “that collaboration, communication, digital literacy, citizen-ship, problem solving, critical thinking, creativity and productivity are essential for living in and contributing to our present societies” (p.404)? Are there exceptions to this?
- This article looks at 21st century skills/competencies as examples of new literacies. One of these competencies, creativity, is presented as a thinking skill, which differs from other authors, who often approach creativity as an attitude, artistic ability, or process. What are your thoughts on this?
- There is a distinction made regarding web literacy between the ability to use tools versus the ability to see the possibilities of a tool and use them for various purposes. With all of the opportunities and tools that come from Web 2.0 (and beyond), why doesn’t every individual possess these literacy skills?
- “[A]lthough teachers find 21st century learning important, they do not promote 21st century learning in their instruction” (p.407). Why do you think this is?
- I found this interesting based on our Voxer conversation mediated by LeAnne:
I find this intriguing simply because of my years of teaching. I remember most of these being stated decades ago. With the exception of “digital literacy”, the others have been deemed a requirement for as long as I can remember. Of course, “citizenship” never referred to digital citizenship, but you still needed to learn citizenship to be a productive member of society. Problem solving and critical thinking have been buzz words in our field off and on for years. I think there are varying levels to all of these. I’m wondering if more emphasis is put on some rather than others when it comes to certain fields. Which leans toward your question of are there exceptions? Does everyone really need all of these to contribute to a society? I’m leaning toward no, at least not to a full extent.
If I think about people I know personally, I can certainly name some who lack in these areas, but they still are considered citizens and contribute to society in one way or another. Your point about some skills being emphasized more than others is interesting. Do some carry more value as society changes? Does it depend on someone’s job? Location? Age?
I think this idea goes back to something we’ve mentioned before – that students must be curious about something to dive into the creative realm about it. Using a tool doesn’t require creativity but being able to think about how a tool could be used is creativity for sure. Both these skills require new literacies in the classroom, but students have to be open to them. We can force them to use a tool – in this way, we get some new literacy but probably not a ton of creativity. We can suggest multiple tools which covers a lot of new literacies and maybe some creativity. Or, we can not suggest any tools at all and ask our students to seek them out which would require the most creativity. But if they aren’t interested in what they are doing (the topic, theme, subject, etc.) it will stifle creativity.
This ties in with our conversations this week in Zoom. I wonder if too many teachers get comfortable in their plans and are afraid to step out of that. Many are also not trained in this as they went to school years/decades ago and have failed to truly keep up. Sometimes old habits are hard to break. Sometimes it’s too hard to fight your own self-expertise ranking in technology and 21st century skills. =(
I’m finding, in my own research, that a lot has come out of the pandemic regarding educator PD, but only about how they need to focus on technology integration. There’s very little about pedagogy or even the format of these PDs. It’s no wonder that instruction hasn’t really changed.
From pages 407-408: “Based on their analysis of frameworks describing 21st century competencies Mishra and Kereluik (2011) identified three key areas that need to be addressed in a 21st century curriculum:
Why would we bog students down with foundational knowledge that can be answered in seconds through Google? We need to teach them to be critical thinkers so when they ultimately search out that answer, they can evaluate whether to trust the response they find. We need to teach them to be collaborators and talk with others about what they find to learn others’ viewpoints and expand their ideas. The foundational knowledge we used to have is shifting away from what it once was – to the point that I believe the points (b) and © are the foundational knowledge we should be teaching.
I actually agree with a lot of what you wrote! Do these vary according to subject? Location? Age of student? And who decides what is essential?
- Foundational knowledge (or what do we need to know). This includes core content knowledge of the disciplines,information literacy(also sometimes called digital literacy) and cross-disciplinary knowl-edge or synthetic knowledge.
- Meta knowledge (or how do we act on this knowl-edge).Included in this were processes such as problem solving, critical thinking, communication, collaboration, creativity and innovation
- Humanistic Knowledge (what do we value): This form of knowledge offers a vision of the learner’s self and its location in a broader social and global context. These include knowledge of life/job skills, cultural and global competence, and ethical and emo-tional awareness.”
General Document Comments 0
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments