Another Denver Airport post: Creative Teachers

We had our end of the year meetings in both sites over the last 10 days, Nebraska and California. As Monique, Nancy and I discussed the energy and immense productivity we saw in the meeting we started recognizing how uniquely creative and collaborative our teachers are. Our approach focuses on key ideas while letting teachers create their units and variations. The idea is that fidelity is to core ideas and not a prescribed lesson. Our principles are about process, thinking and integration. Our teachers have become amazing at using this platform to be creative. Even though grades have created units together the products were often different in meaningful ways. For example all second grades created a stamp as one assignment- but those were not uniform in the classes- showing that kids are creative, not between classroom showing that teachers are creative. More than that they UNDERSTAND what are the key ideas and where they can be creative and create variations that reflect their classrooms, individuality and skill/ comfort level.
As a researcher this has cost me much- and they are constantly aware of the research asking " we don't want to screw up the data". But the results are exactly what we wanted- implementation that is powered by teachers, sustainable, meaningful. For a second there I thought - if I had to retire right now, I would have retired happy.
If we want a creative generation we need to let teachers be creative! For that to happen professional development must provide the space for teacher creativity to emerge.

More Thoughts about Creativity

Before I start I'd like to send a hello to Regina Murphy of Ireland, and invite her to contribute to the blog (let me know and I'll set this up). I never intended this blog to be a one person act and what Regine is doing I find extremely interesting (I'll let her tell about it...).

In my last post I focused on skill as a part of creativity and potentially a filter for measuring "higher order" processes.
The question stays- what is creativity? My understanding is still evolving and this blog seems to be one of the places I do my thinking, so here goes:
Creativity has a strong creative domain component- like expertise in any field it is highly contextualized. If you are a sculptor a painter or a mathematician your deep understanding of your field is part of being creative or it at least a necessary but not sufficient condition. Such domain knowledge is what enables the artist (and I use this term to include anyone attempting to create an art product) to translate a vision, intent to a product. As Mike Jackson explained to me [I am paraphrasing] For me creativity is when I can translate what I see in my mind on the paper, then it is a good product. I care about the process the most, once it is done I stop being engaged.
Yet, people who describe themselves (or by others) as creative seem to be able to carry some of their creativity with them into new domains explore them and finally be engaged with them in full. Looking at the Universal Learning Model that my colleagues and I are focusing on- creativity becomes a multi-dimensional construct that combines several aspects of learning. The first is knowledge of the domain, most important is procedural knowledge that drives the creative process itself. Second is focus- single minded focus of attentional resources (i.e. working memory) to the task at hand. It is the experience of Flow or just extreme focus on the work that is often romantically portrayed. Finally and maybe the characteristic that most often helps the artist transcend a creative genre and learn a new one- Motivation.
The most universal feature of creativity is motivation. Motivation directs attention and allows the focus described above, which in turn leads to learning of new knowledge of the domain and most importantly the process. In motivation I think the most important features are slef-concept, seeing one's self as an artist or creative person. The second is the longing for complete engagement or flow. I think that once you develop Flow, you constantly search for it. And if you cannot find it you look for new domains in which you can re-experience it. Oliver Sacks describes such a case in "The Case of the Colorblind Painter". A desperate search by the artist for the way to rediscover flow probably the experience that ancient artists used to describe as the presence of a muse.
More later

On Being Skillful

We often disregard the skills. We want kids to think (adults too for that matter). As we try to measure things like creativity, we try to avoid the skill threshold or work around it.
I am like that too to a certain degree. But, as I think about these constructs I strongly believe that creativity, intelligence, and learning are all deeply embedded in domain knowledge and a threshold of skills that allow you to engage meaningfully with the the subject matter.
In other words, Tiger Woods that cannot putt well is just a golf bum who thinks a lot about the game, Einstein without his knowledge of math is just a crazy dude sleeping on a park bench. Before we disregard skills in favor of other "higher order" thinking we must remember that when Bloom created his taxonomy he did not mean that knowledge is not as important as any other level in his hierarchy.
Sooooo, my point is that teaching skills and measuring them should not be disregarded. Moreover, if we intend to measure any higher order thinking about these things- creativity, interpretation. We must also measure skills- to make sure that skills are not the filter that mediates what we measure. If we do not, what we claim is creativity may just be a proxy to skill level and out of school experiences.
In fact, I would argue that the only way to reliably measure creativity is a dynamic assessment in which students are first provided a meaningful context to work in and provide content knowledge and then their actions with these building blocks are measured.

AERA

I just finished the AERA presentation on literacy and arts. Despite the fact that we had a round table presentation on a friday afternoon- 7 people showed up.
I presented our the results but on the way conveyed key ideas that have been guiding our research for the past three years.
The first thing I thought was- we need a better forum. As much as I like the Arts and Learning special interest group- too few people pay attention. We must make sure that we reach a wide audience. I think we have something to say. There were also two graduate students in the mix and I thought to myself... they seem to be getting their education in a place that cannot support their interest in arts yo... So nery few places do that. Maybe we need to advertise our expertise or offer a way for students to participate in classes across institutions.
As you can sense these are only beginning thoughts as I enjoy my free afternoon in San Diego.
I can see a number of institutions with faculty interested in education in and through the arts creating a consortium that would help graduate students the kind of classes that really enhance their thinking. Maybe AEP can be the organizing mechanism...
Another random thought- Oxford University Press is interested in a book about arts integration. The editor and I had some ideas about what is needed and how a book can be molded in that direction but I invite comments from others...
Off to get some fish tacos...

What did I learn?

In my last post I was just before my visit to Skinner Academy Arts magnet.
So what did I learn? I learned that things are much better than I imagined in many areas but not all the way where we should be in other ways.
What is encouraging? Well all of our teachers are enthusiastic, they are excited to participate and do the cycles and all of that even when the project stops. What they really have said is- these are well designed units and they are part of our teaching now. We like them, the kids like them, they achieve our learning goals and require some energy in maintenance. I think that the project really encouraged this pattern by focusing on providing professional development and supports that lead to independent application. Our teachers do with a lot of support and very little other resources. As a result once practices become entrenched these "scaffolds" can be easily removed and the building still stands. After we will be gone teachers will not miss the resources as much because they have not come to rely on stipends, lavish classroom products etc.
So if it's all so good what is still missing?
The ongoing struggle is define the boundaries between the arts and music specialists and the classroom teachers. We have different ways of negotiating the boundaries in our different schools (this goes well beyond Skinner). The patterns are- disconnect: you do your thing I'll do my thing, Soap box: I am the expert on this (classroom teachers do this too) you must listen to me, Servitude- Tell what you need me to do . These are all paths on the way to true collaborative practice. We are simply not there yet.
Finally, I've seen only some evidence that the practices we encourage are "spilling over" to the general curriculum as an everyday occurrence. But more on that next week...

Spending Time

Monday I am spending a whole day at Skinner Magnet Center. This is very exciting as I often do school and classroom visits but they are so short that I do not have enough time to sit and talk at length with multiple groups of teachers. As we planned our work this semester, the emphasis was on understanding what is happening in our schools. The results is this visit coming after multiple observations of participating teachers' classrooms.
The questions on my mind are many:
What is working well?
What are the obstacles to arts integration in the different grades?
How is the depth and consistency of arts integration mediated by teacher dynamics (leadership, group vs. individual teacher)?
How do they feel collaboration with Arts specialist is going?
Are teachers stretched or is there some capaciuty (now in our third year) to push even further?
Most important of all- how do they see and feel about arts integration? will they still be doing it after we left?
More questions than answers this week. I'll fill in some answers (or more questions) next week.

Change in Teacher Practice

It is still cold but I am assured that spring is almost here...
The question that is always on our mind is how do we help teachers change their every day practices while honoring the efforts and pressures they have to contend with daily.
Recently I read a masters thesis by Alinda Stelk one of Dr Kathy Wilson's students in it she quotes from Black and William:
Similiarly, Black and William state in their 1998 volume Inside the Black Box, "Teachers will not take up attractive sounding ideas, albeit based on extensive research, if these are presented as general principles which leave entirely to them the task of translating them into everyday practice- their classroom lives are too busy and too fragile for this to be possible for all but an outstanding few. What they need is a variety of living examples of implementation, by teacher with whom they can identify and from whom they can can both derive conviction and confidence that they can do better, and see concrete examples of what doing better means in practice" (pp.15-16)... Cahnages require teachers seeing temselves as learners and working with researchers to learn more."
The fit to our experiences is immediatly validating and daunting. Validating since it is identical in many ways to our practice, daunting because we need to imagine what such a system might look like. It does show as many of the AEMDD grants have in past and present that demonstration projects are invaluable labs for examining such change.
The question still remains; How do we translate it beyond existing projects? Or are we 'doomed' to have pockets of excellence in a sea almost completely devoid of Education in and trough the Arts? One possible answer has grown out of practice in Reading and more recently Math- coaching. Coaches are part of schools but they have the great advantage of focusing on "close distance". They are not of the classroom, but available enough and know enough to be immediately helpful. Their focus is mainly on helping teachers reach their potential and thus reach students mostly through the change in teachers practice. Coaches have the time and distance to think compare and transfer new ideas as well as plan, assess, and critique.
In a recent visit to a reading first school I discussed the new vocabulary emphasis with the coach (one of our best).
She said "We wanted all of our teachers to go into the units and decide which vocabulary should be taught. It was too much for them, finally me and [a coach from another school] used some time in the summer to go through the units and pull the vocabulary out. They simply did not have the time!" Her experience similar to ours is that teachers can be asked to do so much at any point, as expertise grows they can do more but still they need modeling, support and ideas- and I would claim, coaches in their close distance are the way to go.
We can think about it as re purposing the teaching artist/ artist in residence more explicitly guiding them to work with teachers as many projects have been doing to a certain degree for a long while. But as I read my own text I realize that repurposing is the wrong approach. We need the artists to help us build domain knowledge but coaches who are (were) classroom teachers as coaches. It goes back to the observation of Black and William:"What they need is a variety of living examples of implementation, by teacher with whom they can identify and from whom they can can both derive conviction and confidence that they can do better".
Can we (those outside the classroom) do better?