18/04/2011
Wow, so I just got through scouring the curriculum. Creative thinking is a key competency, but isn't explicitly an achievement objective in any of the curriculum areas... I bet that means it gets lost or only taught implictly most of the time.
Monday, 18 April 2011
Thursday, 14 April 2011
Maths Reflection
15/04/2011
Well, I taught the maths lesson...
Turns out leaving the kids to come up with their own creative ways of predicting patterns was a bit of a faliure. The kids basically copied the examples we had done on the board and together on the mat. There wasn't enough time for them to tet their theories, either.
Which leads me to three conclusions:
When working creatively in the classroom, you have to have time to try things out.
6 year olds are absorbing everything around them and interperating it. If you introduce a new idea, they have to have time to play with it.
There are DEFINITELY stages of creative process. And they can't be done at the same time.
The first stage is research of theory and ideas. The second is finding real world examples of those theories and ideas. The third is testing those theories and ideas in other situations, and looking at new ways to apply them. The fourth is adapting, changing or creating new theories/ideas.
What does this mean for me in the classroom?
Well, it's pretty simple. If I want to promote creative thinking in my classroom, I can't expect kids to come up with ideas without stimulation. I also have to know which stage I am at in the process of learning, and teach to that.
More later!
Well, I taught the maths lesson...
Turns out leaving the kids to come up with their own creative ways of predicting patterns was a bit of a faliure. The kids basically copied the examples we had done on the board and together on the mat. There wasn't enough time for them to tet their theories, either.
Which leads me to three conclusions:
When working creatively in the classroom, you have to have time to try things out.
6 year olds are absorbing everything around them and interperating it. If you introduce a new idea, they have to have time to play with it.
There are DEFINITELY stages of creative process. And they can't be done at the same time.
The first stage is research of theory and ideas. The second is finding real world examples of those theories and ideas. The third is testing those theories and ideas in other situations, and looking at new ways to apply them. The fourth is adapting, changing or creating new theories/ideas.
What does this mean for me in the classroom?
Well, it's pretty simple. If I want to promote creative thinking in my classroom, I can't expect kids to come up with ideas without stimulation. I also have to know which stage I am at in the process of learning, and teach to that.
More later!
Got it the wrong way round?
11/04/2011
I've been reading Jared Diamond's famous 1998 publication 'Guns, germs and steel.' In it he points out that inventions rarely happened the way we are told that they did. He discusses the fact that most inventions happen due to long processess of building on other people's ideas, and also that many landmark inventions were created without a purpose, and that a purpose was found for them later and the product was then refined for this. For example, James Watt was supposedly trying to come up with a better way of transporting goods than using horses. One day he watched the steam rise out of his kettle, and Eureka, he had the idea for the steam engine. Except it didn't work like that. His idea was a refinement of many steam engines and plans for steam engines before his - he instead created one that was more fit for a specific purpose than the others.
Considering that invention in a creative process, this thinking can be applied to all creative thinking.
That is - maybe creative thinking does not have to have a purpose. Maybe actually, creative thinking is not about problem solving, but instead about having orginal thoughts and contributing new perspectives for people tp build upon. Maybe your finished product will spark someone elses creativity.
I seem to have come full circle back to where I started - creative thinking for the sake of it. Purposeless, except to expand horizons.
Or maybe the ultimate purpose of creative thinking is new perspectives.
I have to admit, the previous theories I have read have seemed a bit eliteist to me. I think that any child can think creatively, even if what they deliver as a product from that is not a great leap forward in our collective thinking.
I think perhaps my new theory is this:
I've been reading Jared Diamond's famous 1998 publication 'Guns, germs and steel.' In it he points out that inventions rarely happened the way we are told that they did. He discusses the fact that most inventions happen due to long processess of building on other people's ideas, and also that many landmark inventions were created without a purpose, and that a purpose was found for them later and the product was then refined for this. For example, James Watt was supposedly trying to come up with a better way of transporting goods than using horses. One day he watched the steam rise out of his kettle, and Eureka, he had the idea for the steam engine. Except it didn't work like that. His idea was a refinement of many steam engines and plans for steam engines before his - he instead created one that was more fit for a specific purpose than the others.
Considering that invention in a creative process, this thinking can be applied to all creative thinking.
That is - maybe creative thinking does not have to have a purpose. Maybe actually, creative thinking is not about problem solving, but instead about having orginal thoughts and contributing new perspectives for people tp build upon. Maybe your finished product will spark someone elses creativity.
I seem to have come full circle back to where I started - creative thinking for the sake of it. Purposeless, except to expand horizons.
Or maybe the ultimate purpose of creative thinking is new perspectives.
I have to admit, the previous theories I have read have seemed a bit eliteist to me. I think that any child can think creatively, even if what they deliver as a product from that is not a great leap forward in our collective thinking.
I think perhaps my new theory is this:
- Creative thinking is a process of using tools and prior knowledge to discover and create new perspectives on a topic.
- No one person has the knowledge or ability to come up with a desirable product on their own. Creating desirable products is a collective process.
- Expanding on others' ideas is crucial to the collective development of desirable creative products.
- It's ok to teach creative thinking processes without following them through to the end.
- I need to encourage kids to be creative together! Often people jelously guard their 'creative' and 'original' ideas, in case other's copy them. But if we cannot be usefully creatve without others' input, we need to learn to work together.
5 Stages of Creativity
06/04/11
Another reading! (attached) This one identified 5 types or stages of creativity.
Where to start…
My conceptions of creativity before I started this project were firmly in the ‘expressive creativity’ camp. What I was hoping to teach children before I read this article was to reach the stage of ‘technical creativity’, with a vague hope that one child might present ‘Inventive’ or perhaps even ‘Innovative’ creative thought one day.
Some things I need to clear up in my own thinking:
• Creativity is not about being artistic
• Unique thought is subjective
This article makes more sense to me than the ‘genex’ theory, which is absolute in its terms of what is and is not creative thought. That doesn’t mean I’m throwing out the ‘genex’ theory as useful – but that I’d like to try and synthesise these ideas with it.
What this means for my teaching:I think that most of the time in primary school, I will be working in the ‘expressive’ realm, and hoping to help kids into the ‘technical’ realm by the end of their education. However, I believe that children can work in the ‘Inventive’ realm to some extent, with scaffolding – or at least learn tools to help them do this. Maybe even skills for ‘innovative’ creativity can be taught. ‘Emergentive’ creativity seems to me to be out of my grasp in a teaching role. This theory seems to set clear goals to work towards in creative thought.What next?I think the most useful thing for me to do in light of this understanding is to try to design some activities that teach tools for working in each of these stages. These activities should be purposeful, and potentially should work towards some kind of refining and sharing. A big challenge lies ahead.
Teachers conceptions of creativity.pdf
Another reading! (attached) This one identified 5 types or stages of creativity.
- Expressive creativity: as in the spontaneous drawings of a child. Involves instinct and impulsiveness; does not require any particular skill or originality.
- Technical creativity: as in the performance of a virtuoso musician. Comprises knowledge, skills and expertise. Implements ideas, methods or techniques that are new to the individual but not necessarily to the others.
- Inventive creativity: as in the printing press of Gutenberg. Consists of the use of existing ideas, materials, methods and techniques in new or unusual ways.
- Innovative creativity: as in the work of Copernicus who modified earlier theories and formulated his heliocentric cosmology.
Involves conceptualizing skills and the extension of existing ideas, methods, principles, and techniques. - Emergentive creativity: as in the work of Freud. Includes the most abstract theories or assumptions around which new schools of thought, movements and the like can flourish.
Where to start…
My conceptions of creativity before I started this project were firmly in the ‘expressive creativity’ camp. What I was hoping to teach children before I read this article was to reach the stage of ‘technical creativity’, with a vague hope that one child might present ‘Inventive’ or perhaps even ‘Innovative’ creative thought one day.
Some things I need to clear up in my own thinking:
• Creativity is not about being artistic
• Unique thought is subjective
This article makes more sense to me than the ‘genex’ theory, which is absolute in its terms of what is and is not creative thought. That doesn’t mean I’m throwing out the ‘genex’ theory as useful – but that I’d like to try and synthesise these ideas with it.
What this means for my teaching:I think that most of the time in primary school, I will be working in the ‘expressive’ realm, and hoping to help kids into the ‘technical’ realm by the end of their education. However, I believe that children can work in the ‘Inventive’ realm to some extent, with scaffolding – or at least learn tools to help them do this. Maybe even skills for ‘innovative’ creativity can be taught. ‘Emergentive’ creativity seems to me to be out of my grasp in a teaching role. This theory seems to set clear goals to work towards in creative thought.What next?I think the most useful thing for me to do in light of this understanding is to try to design some activities that teach tools for working in each of these stages. These activities should be purposeful, and potentially should work towards some kind of refining and sharing. A big challenge lies ahead.
Teachers conceptions of creativity.pdf
Measuring Creativity
06/04/11
Just read an article on "how to measure creativity" (It is attached below).
The authors chose to judge creativity via 'uniqueness of response'.
Their findings:
Asking people to think creatively is more likely to garner unique results.
Under these circumstances, outside subjective judgments as to the uniqueness of an idea tend to be reliable.
What does this mean for my teaching?
Well, it does raise a new question for me - should I be trying to measure children's creative ability? If so, how can I do this? Would it be useful?
Is uniqueness the most desirable creative outcome in the classroom? I guess it could be in some circumstances, but an understanding of conventions are important too - it is much easier to be 'unique' when one understands conventions.
Also, if a child is unable to grasp conventional ways of doing, say, maths, or thinking about scientific fact, is that going to cause them problems in life?
Seems to me that uniqueness of response is only useful when the person judging that response understands the uniqueness of the idea (which they can only do if they understand the conventions surrounding the topic). A person could be coming up with unique ideas all day long, but unless they can identify the value in them, then it seems to me that they are meaningless.
However, I suppose that by explicitly asking people to 'be creative', you will in fact be assessing their understanding of the conventions. We can see this in children all the time - they often think they are the first person to even come up with an idea or joke, but adults recognise these as derivative or already in use, or even not useful (i.e., claiming that ice is made of rats may be original, but it isn't helpful in any way).
So it seems that teaching conventions may be vital to having useful creative thoughts. However, does teaching conventions in fact restrict thinking to conventional lines of thought?
I suppose that this is the reason we have to teach creative strategies alongside research.
Questions going forward:
Is creativity measurable?
How does one balance teaching conventions with teaching creative thought?
Assessing creativity.pdf
Just read an article on "how to measure creativity" (It is attached below).
The authors chose to judge creativity via 'uniqueness of response'.
Their findings:
Asking people to think creatively is more likely to garner unique results.
Under these circumstances, outside subjective judgments as to the uniqueness of an idea tend to be reliable.
What does this mean for my teaching?
Well, it does raise a new question for me - should I be trying to measure children's creative ability? If so, how can I do this? Would it be useful?
Is uniqueness the most desirable creative outcome in the classroom? I guess it could be in some circumstances, but an understanding of conventions are important too - it is much easier to be 'unique' when one understands conventions.
Also, if a child is unable to grasp conventional ways of doing, say, maths, or thinking about scientific fact, is that going to cause them problems in life?
Seems to me that uniqueness of response is only useful when the person judging that response understands the uniqueness of the idea (which they can only do if they understand the conventions surrounding the topic). A person could be coming up with unique ideas all day long, but unless they can identify the value in them, then it seems to me that they are meaningless.
However, I suppose that by explicitly asking people to 'be creative', you will in fact be assessing their understanding of the conventions. We can see this in children all the time - they often think they are the first person to even come up with an idea or joke, but adults recognise these as derivative or already in use, or even not useful (i.e., claiming that ice is made of rats may be original, but it isn't helpful in any way).
So it seems that teaching conventions may be vital to having useful creative thoughts. However, does teaching conventions in fact restrict thinking to conventional lines of thought?
I suppose that this is the reason we have to teach creative strategies alongside research.
Questions going forward:
Is creativity measurable?
How does one balance teaching conventions with teaching creative thought?
Assessing creativity.pdf
Thinking Creatively in maths!
06/04/2011
So, yesterday at my Tuesday school I ran a maths lesson, and I didn’t feel it went very well.
On the bright side, I get to teach the same lesson to a different group next week. So, I spent some time today working on the lesson plan, trying to make it work better.
The lesson is about figuring out strategies for predicting patterns. The first time I taught it, I tried to guide the kids step by step through each strategy, eliciting ideas from them, but supporting them through each one. At the end, I didn’t feel that any of the kids had actually learned anything. Mainly, I didn’t feel that any of them built any solid links.
Next time, I am going to let them spread their creative wings a bit more, and come up with their strategies in groups without my help, and then get them to explain it to the whole group.
I’ll do a diagnostic first, to help me figure out the groups. I want to put anyone who is really far ahead into their own group to make sure that they will be challenged. And then I want to mix up the other groups so that the lower level kids are being guided by the slightly higher level kids.
This is, of course, what Peter has been talking about in our Maths class, so it will be interesting to try it out. But what I’m especially stoked with is how this lesson fits in with so many of the ideas about creativity I expressed in my last blog post.
Children will use creative thinking in this task:
• To find solutions (strategies to predict patterns)
• To approach an unfamiliar problem and find ways to solve it
• Access ideas that they have not experienced (? Maybe they will come up with the idea of using multiples)
• Understand that there are many perspectives from which to approach an idea or problem (ideas will be shared)
• Judge which idea is the most effective (after the initial group work, students will be asked to choose a strategy and solve the next problem)
This lesson also taps into the ‘genex’ theory of creative thinking:
Collect: We will practice skip counting, times tables and counting on before hand. We must also have our background knowledge well established – e.g. ordinal nature of numbers, how to skip count etc.
Relate: Strategies will be devised alongside peers
Create: Solutions will be recorded
Donate: Ideas will be shared with the group, for them to judge and use.
Of course, the lesson is also in line with co-constructivist thought.
I’m now really excited to see if this works. If it does, I will look at maths in a whole new light!
(The full lesson is attached for you to download if you wish)
Plan for 120411.docx
Large number chart.docx
Sheet 1 advanced.docx
Sheet 2 standard.docx
So, yesterday at my Tuesday school I ran a maths lesson, and I didn’t feel it went very well.
On the bright side, I get to teach the same lesson to a different group next week. So, I spent some time today working on the lesson plan, trying to make it work better.
The lesson is about figuring out strategies for predicting patterns. The first time I taught it, I tried to guide the kids step by step through each strategy, eliciting ideas from them, but supporting them through each one. At the end, I didn’t feel that any of the kids had actually learned anything. Mainly, I didn’t feel that any of them built any solid links.
Next time, I am going to let them spread their creative wings a bit more, and come up with their strategies in groups without my help, and then get them to explain it to the whole group.
I’ll do a diagnostic first, to help me figure out the groups. I want to put anyone who is really far ahead into their own group to make sure that they will be challenged. And then I want to mix up the other groups so that the lower level kids are being guided by the slightly higher level kids.
This is, of course, what Peter has been talking about in our Maths class, so it will be interesting to try it out. But what I’m especially stoked with is how this lesson fits in with so many of the ideas about creativity I expressed in my last blog post.
Children will use creative thinking in this task:
• To find solutions (strategies to predict patterns)
• To approach an unfamiliar problem and find ways to solve it
• Access ideas that they have not experienced (? Maybe they will come up with the idea of using multiples)
• Understand that there are many perspectives from which to approach an idea or problem (ideas will be shared)
• Judge which idea is the most effective (after the initial group work, students will be asked to choose a strategy and solve the next problem)
This lesson also taps into the ‘genex’ theory of creative thinking:
Collect: We will practice skip counting, times tables and counting on before hand. We must also have our background knowledge well established – e.g. ordinal nature of numbers, how to skip count etc.
Relate: Strategies will be devised alongside peers
Create: Solutions will be recorded
Donate: Ideas will be shared with the group, for them to judge and use.
Of course, the lesson is also in line with co-constructivist thought.
I’m now really excited to see if this works. If it does, I will look at maths in a whole new light!
(The full lesson is attached for you to download if you wish)
Plan for 120411.docx
Large number chart.docx
Sheet 1 advanced.docx
Sheet 2 standard.docx
What is creative thinking?
03/04/2011
Ok, here is my first brainstorm on what creative thinking is about:
What is the purpose of creative thinking?
• To entertain through surprise
• To find solutions (where others have failed?)
• To be able to approach a problem in which you have no background, and propose ways to solve it.
• To access ideas that you have not experienced.
• To apply an idea in a way in which you have not experienced it being applied.
• Breaking down imagined barriers and recognizing when conventions are able to be broken.
• Understanding that there are many perspectives from which to approach an idea or problem, and having the tools with which to access those perspectives (even if they are unfamiliar to you),
• and the ability to judge which of those perspectives will be most effective in producing the desired outcome.
That's all I have for now, although I'll try to revisit this soon and see if any of these ideas are useful in the classroom. I'll also try to find some scholarly thoughts about it.
Ciao!
Ok, here is my first brainstorm on what creative thinking is about:
What is the purpose of creative thinking?
• To entertain through surprise
• To find solutions (where others have failed?)
• To be able to approach a problem in which you have no background, and propose ways to solve it.
• To access ideas that you have not experienced.
• To apply an idea in a way in which you have not experienced it being applied.
• Breaking down imagined barriers and recognizing when conventions are able to be broken.
• Understanding that there are many perspectives from which to approach an idea or problem, and having the tools with which to access those perspectives (even if they are unfamiliar to you),
• and the ability to judge which of those perspectives will be most effective in producing the desired outcome.
That's all I have for now, although I'll try to revisit this soon and see if any of these ideas are useful in the classroom. I'll also try to find some scholarly thoughts about it.
Ciao!
O Reli?
03/04/2011
Just read an article (creative justice article.pdf) about a study which found that teachers who did not enjoy school were more likely to promote creativity in the classroom. They call this phenomenon 'creative justice' - in other words, they suggest that teachers who experienced creativity-diminishing environments at school try to right this wrong when they are teaching. Teachers who had great experiences at school see extra promotion of creativity as extra-curricular, and a luxury. Gotta say, I'm not sure I believe that; I enjoyed my primary education, am ambivalent about my secondary, and had a blast in my tertiary. But maybe I'm an out lier.
Another significant factor was whether teachers felt like they knew how to promote creativity. If they felt like they knew how, they were more likely to value it. I guess this fits in with my point of view too.
Not a terribly informative article in the end, unless it is correct. In which case, might creative thinking be encouraged by ignoring it in schooling? That seems bizarre... think I'll just ignore this one.
Just read an article (creative justice article.pdf) about a study which found that teachers who did not enjoy school were more likely to promote creativity in the classroom. They call this phenomenon 'creative justice' - in other words, they suggest that teachers who experienced creativity-diminishing environments at school try to right this wrong when they are teaching. Teachers who had great experiences at school see extra promotion of creativity as extra-curricular, and a luxury. Gotta say, I'm not sure I believe that; I enjoyed my primary education, am ambivalent about my secondary, and had a blast in my tertiary. But maybe I'm an out lier.
Another significant factor was whether teachers felt like they knew how to promote creativity. If they felt like they knew how, they were more likely to value it. I guess this fits in with my point of view too.
Not a terribly informative article in the end, unless it is correct. In which case, might creative thinking be encouraged by ignoring it in schooling? That seems bizarre... think I'll just ignore this one.
Consructuvism and Creativity
01/04/2011
Lots of reading today about co-constructivist theory.
How does it apply to what I learned yesterday?
Some thoughts...
There seem to be 2 main thrusts to my learning at the moment. I think going forward I will need to:
Lots of reading today about co-constructivist theory.
How does it apply to what I learned yesterday?
Some thoughts...
- Co-constructivism and the 'genex' theory emphasise importance of social interaction.
- Co-constructivism encourages children to make their own meaning, with the help of a 'more knowledgeable other' to guide the discussions. This is at the very heart of teaching creative thinking! You can't be creative for other people, you can only give them the tools to do it for themselves. But at the same time, my definition of creative thinking would be more about expanding horizons than about the simple construction of meaning.
- BUT, does this mean I should not teach the tools explicitly, and instead let children construct their own tools? If so, how do I do that?
- I still don't understand how this fits into teaching things like maths. It feels just out of my grasp....
There seem to be 2 main thrusts to my learning at the moment. I think going forward I will need to:
- Define what 'creative thinking' means
- Define the purpose of 'creative thinking'
Examining models of Ceativity
31/03/2011
Today I read a great article about creativity and technology (Schniederman, Creating creativity, user interfaces for supporting innovation). Has a fantastic overview of theories of creative thinking.
The theory that I found most interesting (and which the article promotes) is the 'genex' theory.
It says that creative thinking has 4 (not necessarily linear) parts:
— Collect: learn from previous works stored in libraries, the Web, etc.
— Relate: consult with peers and mentors at early, middle, and late stages
— Create: explore, compose, and evaluate possible solutions
— Donate: disseminate the results and contribute to the libraries
This is especially neat because, unlike many of the other theories, it considers the social aspect of creativity.
The article also discusses three ‘schools’ of creative thought:
Inspriationalists – who emphasise the ‘ahha!’ moment. They use tools such as brain-storming, free association, and new experiences to inspire creativity. They consider that most of their time will be spent on the hard work of generating ideas to inspire creativity, in order to reach that one moment of inspiration. They are especially concerned with finding solutions to problems.
Structuralists – who emphasise the need for research and prior knowledge before creative thought can occur. They use a highly methodical approach to examine any new ideas and compare them to existing ideas, and then refine over and over.
Situationalists – who consider creativity to be contextual, and embedded in cultures of practice. They make a distinction between ‘original thought’ and ‘creative work’. They note that there are ‘gatekeepers’ within any culture of practice, who must acknowledge and distribute an idea before it can be considered a creative work. These people may be curators, publishers, librarians, the Nobel prize committee, etc.
What does this mean for my practise?
I have taken 4 things away from reading this article:
To be honest, I’m not quite sure. But I think that this has really reinforced to me the importance of lesson planning and learning objectives. I’ll keep you posted on how and what I implement in light of this learning!
Today I read a great article about creativity and technology (Schniederman, Creating creativity, user interfaces for supporting innovation). Has a fantastic overview of theories of creative thinking.
The theory that I found most interesting (and which the article promotes) is the 'genex' theory.
It says that creative thinking has 4 (not necessarily linear) parts:
— Collect: learn from previous works stored in libraries, the Web, etc.
— Relate: consult with peers and mentors at early, middle, and late stages
— Create: explore, compose, and evaluate possible solutions
— Donate: disseminate the results and contribute to the libraries
This is especially neat because, unlike many of the other theories, it considers the social aspect of creativity.
The article also discusses three ‘schools’ of creative thought:
Inspriationalists – who emphasise the ‘ahha!’ moment. They use tools such as brain-storming, free association, and new experiences to inspire creativity. They consider that most of their time will be spent on the hard work of generating ideas to inspire creativity, in order to reach that one moment of inspiration. They are especially concerned with finding solutions to problems.
Structuralists – who emphasise the need for research and prior knowledge before creative thought can occur. They use a highly methodical approach to examine any new ideas and compare them to existing ideas, and then refine over and over.
Situationalists – who consider creativity to be contextual, and embedded in cultures of practice. They make a distinction between ‘original thought’ and ‘creative work’. They note that there are ‘gatekeepers’ within any culture of practice, who must acknowledge and distribute an idea before it can be considered a creative work. These people may be curators, publishers, librarians, the Nobel prize committee, etc.
What does this mean for my practise?
I have taken 4 things away from reading this article:
- Creativity is grounded in research. It does not stem from nowhere. In a classroom this means research and teaching is required on a topic before a creative process can take place.
- Creativity uses processes and tools to generate ideas. These tools must be taught. Ideas do not stem from nothing. This is probably the part that I have emphasised the most in my own teaching.
- Creativity is purposeful. The tools of creative thought are just one part of the creative process. While they should be taught, they are a means to an end. That end may be ‘to play an enjoyable game’ or ‘to find a cure for cancer’. This relates well to the idea of learning objectives in lesson planning.
- Creativity benefits from social interaction. This means getting experts in to discuss work, encouraging group work and sharing of ideas, and most of all creating a safe learning environment in which critiquing of work is desirable and constructive.
- There is a difference between original thought and creative work. This fits in with the need for high expectations in the classroom, something I have been struggling with. This is about getting children to refine their work until it is something desirable for distribution. In order to do this, I need to believe that children have the ability to produce work that others will wish to have access to, to identify areas in which children will be able to contribute in a real world sense, and to scaffold children to the point of distribution.
To be honest, I’m not quite sure. But I think that this has really reinforced to me the importance of lesson planning and learning objectives. I’ll keep you posted on how and what I implement in light of this learning!
Eureka!
30/03/2011
Well, it took some agonising, but I finally figured it out!
How did I do it? Well, I was thinking about it in the shower this morning, contemplating what 'creativity' meant. Does it mean playing games? Imagining? Or maybe it means thinking for yourself...
I decided I have been trying too hard to be 'creative' in my presentation of the science. What I really need to do is listen to the children (or my peers in this case), and design the lesson that will be most condusive to their learning. Or, as Peter, our maths teacher might say, the lesson that will help them teach themselves.
From there, it all started to click, and the 'creativity' came naturally.
Truth be told, I don't fully have a handle on it yet, but but I think the key lies with listening. The more I can put the bal into the kids court, the more creative they will have to be. Of course I will need to provide support structures...
Anyway, most of the creativity in this lesson is in the diagnosis activity. The assessment activity also requires some creative thinking. (Messages for diagnositc.doc Summative assessment worksheet.doc).
Well, it took some agonising, but I finally figured it out!
How did I do it? Well, I was thinking about it in the shower this morning, contemplating what 'creativity' meant. Does it mean playing games? Imagining? Or maybe it means thinking for yourself...
I decided I have been trying too hard to be 'creative' in my presentation of the science. What I really need to do is listen to the children (or my peers in this case), and design the lesson that will be most condusive to their learning. Or, as Peter, our maths teacher might say, the lesson that will help them teach themselves.
From there, it all started to click, and the 'creativity' came naturally.
Truth be told, I don't fully have a handle on it yet, but but I think the key lies with listening. The more I can put the bal into the kids court, the more creative they will have to be. Of course I will need to provide support structures...
Anyway, most of the creativity in this lesson is in the diagnosis activity. The assessment activity also requires some creative thinking. (Messages for diagnositc.doc Summative assessment worksheet.doc).
Science Gah!
29/03/2011I'm really struggling today to get creative in this peer teaching science lesson. Geology is all hard facts. I created a board game (Board game.docx) but I'm not sure it's going to work... I will try to get them modelling earthforms with plastercine as well, I've found a couple of good books to help me... maybe I could get them to construct the old pangea puzzle?
The fact of the matter is that when you have to teach established facts in 30 minutes and link them into the curriculum, there isn't a lot of room for creativity. Or maybe the main problem is that I don't know the subject well enough to find the creativity within it...
The fact of the matter is that when you have to teach established facts in 30 minutes and link them into the curriculum, there isn't a lot of room for creativity. Or maybe the main problem is that I don't know the subject well enough to find the creativity within it...
The start of creative thinking
28/03/2011
Of my many strengths, coming from the backgroud that I do, the one I struggle with the most has been bringing acting into the classroom. I feel like I don't understand where to start, because I work at such an advanced level these days.
One thing that has really helped this has been the concept of scaffolding. I took my first scaffolded creative writing lesson the other day. It took some hard thinking and didn't go as well as it could have, but now that I've done it, I'm stoked, and ready to have another go.
One thing that has surprised me has been children's instinctive copying response. I always thought that children just automatically were 'creative' - that they lived on imagination. Now I see that while kids may be more prepared to suspend disbelief, creative thinking is still a learned skill.
One issue, of course, is that children are being introduced to lots of ideas at the same time. They don't know what is derivative and what is not. It's hard to think outside the square when you are seeing this brand new amazing square for the first time.
Provoking children's imagination is just like Helen says in our litteracy lectures - they need guided experiences to help them imagine.
So where to from here?
Well there are two issues that interest me:
1) How do I introduce creative thinking into more factual curriculum areas, like ICT, maths and science?
2) What place does drama have in a curriculum that is already packed full? What does it add that other subjects don't?
I'll blog more on these thoughts next time...
Of my many strengths, coming from the backgroud that I do, the one I struggle with the most has been bringing acting into the classroom. I feel like I don't understand where to start, because I work at such an advanced level these days.
One thing that has really helped this has been the concept of scaffolding. I took my first scaffolded creative writing lesson the other day. It took some hard thinking and didn't go as well as it could have, but now that I've done it, I'm stoked, and ready to have another go.
One thing that has surprised me has been children's instinctive copying response. I always thought that children just automatically were 'creative' - that they lived on imagination. Now I see that while kids may be more prepared to suspend disbelief, creative thinking is still a learned skill.
One issue, of course, is that children are being introduced to lots of ideas at the same time. They don't know what is derivative and what is not. It's hard to think outside the square when you are seeing this brand new amazing square for the first time.
Provoking children's imagination is just like Helen says in our litteracy lectures - they need guided experiences to help them imagine.
So where to from here?
Well there are two issues that interest me:
1) How do I introduce creative thinking into more factual curriculum areas, like ICT, maths and science?
2) What place does drama have in a curriculum that is already packed full? What does it add that other subjects don't?
I'll blog more on these thoughts next time...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)