A pathetic list of reasons for paper books

Perhaps it's just depression over losing our sub zero temps here in Minnesota, but little things have been annoying me lately. Here's one.

In 10 Things a Kindle Can't Do That a Hardcover Book Can, Connie Francis* lists:

1. Finding a mate
2. Making friends
3. Judging people
4. Impromptu blocks (propping up table legs)
5. Pressing flowers
6. Completing a costume
7. A weapon
8. Impromptu toilet paper
9. Bug killer
10. Making friends with author 

These were listed after the usual "Ooooh, I just love the feel, smell, taste, etc of printed books" rhapsody. 

Really, we should keep buying paper books just in case the stall is out of TP? Print lovers, judging by this list, you're getting desperate. Ms Francis, if this were written tongue-in-cheek, you were far too subtle for me.

Now compare the list above to my friend Vicki Davis's 11 Reasons E-books Can Improve Your Life:

1. Highlights and Notes.
2. Search.
3. Portability.
4. Shareability.
5. Connectedness.
6. Organization.
7. Readability.
8. Learning.
9. Availability.
10. Price.
11. Opportunity.

Wow - actual educational benefits. Ms Davis, I would add to your list privacy (my classmates can't see what I am reading) and security (I can lose the reader, but the book will remain in the cloud).

One of the major challenges our district will face in being able to take full advantage of e-books is acquiring the physical devices needed so all students have 24/7 access to them. We'll be testing cheapie Android tablets this spring to see if there is a workable alternative to a $300 iPad.

Oh, you can smash a spider with your Kindle. Just do it gently.

* Not sure if this is the "Where the Boys Are" chanteuse or not.

Image source

6 business myths educators should know

... when people are doing work that they love and they're allowed to deeply engage in it -- and when the work itself is valued and recognized -- then creativity will flourish. Even in tough times. - Teresa Amabile

Business is very interested in how to make employees more creative. THE 6 MYTHS OF CREATIVITY from the December 2004 issue of Fast Company describes work done by Teresa Amabile at the Harvard business school. Her study reviewed 12,000 daily journal entries from 238 people working on creative projects in seven companies. And she discovered some interesting myths that she feels companies need to recognize if they want to increase creativity in their employees.

What I find interesting is that these business myths have direct correlations to education if we stretch our thinking even a little. Here they are. (Remember these are myths.) My comments are in italics.

1. CREATIVITY COMES FROM CREATIVE TYPES ... almost all of the research in this field shows that anyone with normal intelligence is capable of doing some degree of creative work. ... Intrinsic motivation -- people who are turned on by their work often work creatively -- is especially critical. We need to recognize that all students, not just those in the talented and gifted programs, AP classes, or on a college track, have the capacity to be innovative, especially when intrinsically motivated.
2. MONEY IS A CREATIVITY MOTIVATOR Bonuses and pay-for-performance plans can even be problematic when people believe that every move they make is going to affect their compensation. In those situations, people tend to get risk averse. ... it's critical for leaders to match people to projects not only on the basis of their experience but also in terms of where their interests lie. Grades, class rank, or even winning competitions are not the key to making students more creative. The truly original thinkers work out of personal need and interest, not for high test scores. In fact worrying about grades and other extrinsic motivators may make students risk adverse and less likely to take creative chances.
3. TIME PRESSURE FUELS CREATIVITY ... when people were working under great pressure, their creativity went down not only on that day but the next two days as well. Time pressure stifles creativity because people can't deeply engage with the problem. 50 minute classes, over-stuffed curricula, and too much deadline-driven homework will kill creativity in kids. How many kids get time in school (or life) to reflect and dream - or even encouraged to do so?
4. FEAR FORCES BREAKTHROUGHS ... creativity is positively associated with joy and love and negatively associated with anger, fear, and anxiety. The [diary] entries show that people are happiest when they come up with a creative idea, but they're more likely to have a breakthrough if they were happy the day before. ... One day's happiness often predicts the next day's creativity. Our children's overall attitude toward school is a critical factor in helping them exercise their creative muscles. Kids who don't like school, feel isolated or depressed, or are always under pressure will not become original problem-solvers.
5. COMPETITION BEATS COLLABORATION ... creativity takes a hit when people in a work group compete instead of collaborate. The most creative teams are those that have the confidence to share and debate ideas. But when people compete for recognition, they stop sharing information. What does this say about many of the competitions sponsored to encourage creativity? Does ranking and giving awards encourage or discourage the entrepreneurial spirit? Grades will be less effective than performance assessments in bringing out the creativity energies of kids. 
6. A STREAMLINED ORGANIZATION IS A CREATIVE ORGANIZATION Anticipation of the downsizing was even worse than the downsizing itself -- people's fear of the unknown led them to basically disengage from the work. Huge class sizes, inadequate beleaguered staff, crumbling facilities, and disappearing extra curricular opportunities are the equivalent of business downsizing. Reducing school budgets may well reduce the number of creative graduates as well.

I know that business and education can be two very different animals. But human nature is human nature whether that human is an accountant or a third-grade student. When no-nonsense business experts recognize the factors that encourage or inhibit creativity, all of us ought to pay attention.

Image source

Wisdom or groupthink from collaboration?

“Ten men in a room trying to come up with their favorite ice cream are going to agree on vanilla,” [movie director Darren Aronofsky] said in The New Yorker. “I’m the rocky road guy.” Timothy Egan, Creativity vs Quants

One of my tech integrations specialists and I are having a friendly debate over the value of collaboration. I see collaboration as a means to an end - just one arrow in a quiver of tools one might use to achieve an outcome. (Been beating this drum for awhile.)

Tracy sees it as an inherent good. Even if the end product of collaboration is no better or worse than independent action, the process of working together itself has value. I will admit that developing good working relationships built on mutual respect is a wonderful thing. 

But I still wonder if collaboration is the answer to every problem or plan. I've found three conditions to effective collaborative efforts, ones that keep us all from going over the cliff while holding hands and singing Kumbaya...

1. Multiple POV are represented in the team. The best groups are ones in which each member can make a unique contribution, has specialized knowledge, and may have a different goal (agenda?). If I remember, Surowiecki says it's not the size of the crowd as much as the diversity of the crowd that leads to wisdom.

2. Guidance not consensus is the goal. Groups who cannot deliver a decision that is not agreed to by all parties will always take the safest approach, the one least likely to create significant change. Individuals take risks; groups maintain the status quo. While input and an understanding why a decision is made is critical, 100% agreement on a course of action or plan is not. In fact, it may be the worst choice made. Unless you always want vanilla.

3. Expedience is not essential. Most of us in managerial positions make multiple choices every day. Were I to call just my department leadership team (all four) together to get agreement on each decision I need to make, none of us would get much done. When we do meet (and when members of my department work jointly with other departments), it's about big projects, rules and policies, and basic philosophies (that can then be used to inform specific decisions).

Good leaders and managers build consensus. They make decisions based on multiple frames of reference. They take time when necessary in making good choices.

But ultimately their course of action is one for which they take individual responsibility and they sometimes make choices that are not uniformly popular. And sometimes I am wrong rather than safe.

It's the only way organizations get jamoca almond fudge.