Johnson’s Theory of Multiple Creative Abilities

I've written briefly before about how we need to expand Sir Ken Robinson's statement "We should not ask if a student is intelligent, but how a student is intelligent" to read "We should not ask if a student is creative, but how a student is creative."

I've been thinking (ouch!) about this statement- an absolutely critical understanding for all educators to internalize, given both the vocational and personal abiliites needed for success and happiness in age of automation and outsourcing,

Howard Gardner in his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences suggested educators expand their view of intelligence. Rather than just thinking that kids who could read, write, and do math well were smart, Gardner started all of in education considering those who students who were artistically gifted in the visual and musical arts; those who excelled physically in sports and dance; and even those who might exhibit spiritual and ecological abilities beyond the norm. I believe this had a positive impact on education.

I am humbly suggesting we also expand our view of creativity. While related to intelligence, creative abilities combine originality with craftsmanship to good produce something that has value. Talent and giftedness are a natural ability to exhibit craft in certain areas of creativity.

In a somewhat arbitrary fashion, I’ve chosen twelve areas where I have seen students at all age level exhibit creative abilities and grouped them.

Artistic creativity

1. Writing/Presenting/Storytelling
2. Graphic artistic (drawing, painting, sculpting, photography, designing)
3. Musically artistic

Academic creativity

4. Numeric problem-solving and coding
5. Scientific inventiveness
6. Content-area specific creativity (history, languages, literary interpretation, etc.)

 Physical creativity

7. Athletic/movement (Sports, dance)

Interpersonal creativity

8. Humor
9. Team-building/ interpersonal personal problem-solving
10. Leading/Organizing
11. Motivating/inspiring

Academic survival "innovation"

12. Excuse-making, teacher manipulation, cheating, etc.

I am very interested in hearing from you, Blue Skunk readers, about whether this makes sense. Whether the organization is appropriate (I am thinking about how we may assess, teach, acknowledge these areas). What I've left out and what shouldn't be included.

And of course, I'd love examples of students exhibiting creativity in any and all of these areas. 

BFTP: Minnesota's aging school collections

A weekend Blue Skunk "feature" will be a revision of an old post. I'm calling this BFTP: Blast from the Past. Original post February 2, 2009.

On re-reading this, I am thinking about how and if we will weed our e-book collections. While it's true that titles won't need to be tossed to make more shelf space for new titles, old info is old info regardless of source. And neglected library collections will not be as obvious when online. Hmmmmmm...

Hard hitting investigative reporting:

Books on disco dancing from the 1970s. On computer graphics from the 1980s. 
Where did we find them? Your local school library. How did these collections get so old? KSTP/TV (Video of broadcast no longer available).

That five minute clip is probably pretty accurate. Our last school library survey (2004) indicated an average copyright date of 1985 for books in Minnesota school libraries. 20 years old on average! We are almost to the point that African schools will be sending their discarded materials to us.

The automatic assumption is that the reason for aged collections is a lack of funding. It's actually more complicated than that.

• Every school school has the funds to maintain a first rate library collection. Now the school may not choose to expend its funds to do so, but it has the funds. Budgets always reflect priorities. (Budgeting for Lean Mean Times) Poor budgets do not reflect a lack of money, but a lack of advocacy for the budget line item framed in benefit to students. Sorry, that's the way it is.
• Old collections demonstrate a lack of professionalism as much as a lack of funding. It costs nothing except a few minutes a week to weed out old materials. Every Friday afternoon just before going home, pick one section of bookcase and look at each book. If it is less than ten years old or has been checked out within the last three years, keep it. If not, toss it. Dump duplicate copies unless popular. Toss anything that is worn-out.
• Logic would have it that schools without professional school librarians are more likely to have dated collections. I wish I could make that statement with more confidence than I feel.
• Full shelves of worthless books are much, much worse than half or three-quarter empty shelves. See Weed! and Weeding the Neglected Collection. I can state with confidence that your book budget will increase after a comprehensive collection weeding.
• Put yourself in your students' position for a moment. Which would you prefer using - a shiny new computer or an aged, nasty book?

As a profession, we librarians need to stop viewing the book as a holy object. Discarding Preparing for Jobs of the 80s is not the same as censorship. Like cornflakes, baby aspirin, and even the Kennedy and Bush political families, books have a shelf life that needs to be observed.

Start weeding today.

Using the TPACK model to evaluate apps

At a regional digital education leaders' meeting last week, Nathan Thompson, a tech director from a neighboring school district, shared his views on the "TPACK" framework of technology integration.

I'd glanced at it before as a part of Ruben Puentedura's presentations on his SAMR model. But it looked pretty complex and scary and, really, who the hell needs yet another tech integration model?

Image source: http://www.tpack.org/

But after Nathan's explanation and some group discussion, the model started sinking through my thick skull. And I liked the framework one I got past all the TLAs (Three Letter Acronyms).

Might TPACK prove useful for evaluating software, apps, and educational websites?

I've always been distressed by the "app-happy" frenzy of many teachers and techies. Let's install every app! Let's go to every educational website! Let's assuage our FOMO and jump on board each sparkly bit of code! When I go to a conference, I want to see every "5000 Best Websites for Teachers" presentation! Woo, woo!

What would happen if before using any technology resource with kids, a simple form based on the TPACK model needed to be completed. It would simply require that these questions be answered:

1. What is the content knowledge, skill set, or standard this resource will help you meet?
2. What best-practice pedagogy does this resource use to help teach the content?
3. What are the technical requirements of the resource?

Here is my fear. How many teachers may not be able to articulate either a standard or a pedagogy? This is why technology departments need their counterparts in the teaching and learning departments just as much as they need us.  I think Covey would have called us "co-dependent."