Most recent public comments by Tiffany Sutter https://nowcomment.com/users/90734 https://nowcomment.com/documents/224569?scroll_to=2061123 https://nowcomment.com/documents/224569?scroll_to=2061123 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 (c) are the foundational knowledge we should be teaching. Sun, 20 Sep 2020 17:23:44 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/224569?scroll_to=2061122 https://nowcomment.com/documents/224569?scroll_to=2061122 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. Fri, 18 Sep 2020 19:35:53 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/224569?scroll_to=2061121 https://nowcomment.com/documents/224569?scroll_to=2061121 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. Sun, 20 Sep 2020 17:08:28 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/224569?scroll_to=2061120 https://nowcomment.com/documents/224569?scroll_to=2061120 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. Fri, 18 Sep 2020 19:31:01 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/224569?scroll_to=2061119 https://nowcomment.com/documents/224569?scroll_to=2061119 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. Fri, 18 Sep 2020 19:23:26 -0400