Teaching Outside the Lines

 

Teaching Outside the Lines (Johnson 2015) outlines what creativity looks like in education, and why it is so necessary. The author begins by debunking seven frequently voiced delusions about creativity, then introduces many ways we can encourage creativity in education.  

The AASL (2207) standards demand student "demonstrate creativity by using multiple resources and formats" and "use creative and artistic formats to express personal learning." This suggests that we should be looking for creativity as a valuable skill students will need to be successful in education, their careers and in life.  If creativity is one way to empower students by allowing them to solve any problem they encounter, and be able to change their lives for the better; then creativity is a necessary skill to be fostered in school. 

But what exactly is creativity and how can it be taught?  In this book many definitions are given: independence, curiosity, self-confidence, growth mindset, risk tolerance, grit and playfulness are a few.  The easiest for me to engage with was that of Big -C and little -c (Csikszentmihalyi 1997).  The Big-C creativity is what we identify with innovative scientists, artists and folks who influence their entire world.  If this was the only form of creativity possible, then children could not be considered creative.  The little-c of creativity is the everyday problem solving that we are all involved in on a personal level.  We might call it improvisation, adjusting, or being flexible, and just as we might employ it unconsciously, it can also be something we ask students to practice.  The opportunity to think of creative solutions to a problem might be more useful to a learner than the traditional projects and formal assignments. 

There is another Creative C, the Middle -C (Morelock & Feldman, 1999), which is more intentional than the little-c, but has less impact than the big-C.  This definition of creativity is what occurs in schools.  We try new things, revise outdated ideas, make connections and modify technology to suit our needs. Furthermore, students do not experience this when working towards formal summative tests.  There is a need for open ended project work that has the potential of releasing a creative spark.  

One of the 7 delusions at the beginning of the book:  Technology use automatically demands creativity.  Where it might be true that new technology might be motivational,  it may actually discourage innovation with its mindless programs that require no talent.  Projects that allow creativity use technology in productive ways.  And projects that allow the teacher to become a colearner in the classroom, also lead to greater creativity.   It is vital that teachers are designing assignments that help teach not just content, but learning processes as well. 

In choosing technologies that encourage creativity, it is important to make sure the tool is being used for the right purpose; either for research, production, or for communication. 

The author asks whether, as educators, we fear working with creativity because we cannot objectively measure it.  He quotes Grant Wiggins (2013a) who warns that poor assessments can work against innovative thinking.  But does creativity need to be measured or assessed?  The answer is yes, if creativity is important it should play a part in assessment.  The rubric may need to be modified to allow "exceeds expectation".  There should not be a checklist or examples of "exemplary" results, neither should there be limiting factors in the rubric.  Instead of assessing students' work as right or wrong, we could decide that the method was either effective or ineffective.  

If we use this way of assessing students' creativity, we need to ask the student:  "Did your new approach work and why or why not?"  However, the teacher must also design assignments where students are asked to use innovation in their solution, not merely imitating a portion of content.  And we cannot ask if a child is creative, but how that child is creative.

Creative Project by student

About the Author
Doug Johnson is the Director of Technology for the Burnsville-Eagan-Savage (MN) Public Schools and has served as an adjunct faculty member of Minnesota State University. His teaching experience has included work in grades K-12 both here and in Saudi Arabia. He is the author of nine books including Learning Right From Wrong in the Digital Age; Machines are the Easy Part; People are the Hard Part; and The Classroom Teacher′s Technology Survival Guide. His columns appear in ASCD’s Educational Leadership and in Library Media Connection. Doug’s Blue Skunk Blog averages over 50,000 visits a month, and his articles have appeared in over forty books and periodicals. Doug has conducted workshops and given presentations for over 200 organizations throughout the United States and internationally and has held a variety of leadership positions in state and national organizations, including ISTE and AASL.

Johnson, D. (2015). Teaching outside the lines. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

I read the Kindle version which I rented from Amazon.com https://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Outside-Lines-Developing-Creativity-ebook/dp/B07C66DD9B

References:

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.  New York, NY: Harper.

Morelock, M. J., & Feldman, D. H. (1999) Prodigies. In M. Runco & S, Orutzjer (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 1303-1310).  San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Wigging, G. (2o13a). How to create a rubric that does what you want it to.  Te@chThought. Retrieved from https://www.teachthought.com/pedagogy/how-to-create-a-rubric-that-does-what-you-want-it-to/

Graphics from https://pages.stolaf.edu/. St. Olaf College,  Northfield, MN

The Case for Elementary Specialists

 

Our school started with Distance Learning this fall and the elementary teachers are using Seesaw as a learning management system. The initial problems with the platform drove homeroom teachers to seek out solutions using Google Suites and Zoom to connect with students and provide instruction. The specialist teachers (Art, Music, PE and Foreign Language) were given their own classes on Seesaw, but with no synchronous instruction time. Immediately the problem arose round students only responding to their homeroom teacher’s assignments, and neglecting the ‘specials’ or electives. In some cases, the students would choose to do one assignment in a subject of interest and ignore the rest. A general lack of respect was shown for these ‘specialist’ teachers, both verbally from students, and in the fact that their class rosters were not updated with changes and withdrawals. They reached out to me for help, and I was left wondering: “Why do we have specialist teachers in the elementary school?” If these teachers offer instruction for elective courses that are not part of the core curriculum, then shouldn’t their classes be considered as enrichment, and therefore optional to the student? If these classes are considered an essential part of the elementary curriculum, then why are they not taught alongside all the other core subjects by a generalist trained in that age level’s pedagogy?

Some countries have not moved much past the one-room schoolhouse, where elementary students are instructed in all subjects by one teacher. Others are investing in a host of specialists for high status subjects, with an interest in gaining higher test scores.
What is the role of a specialist elementary teacher? Is there any evidence that specialist teachers ( as opposed to classroom generalists) in the elementary school can have an effect on student achievement?
The classroom generalist vs subject specialist argument is an old one. However, there is little evidence to suggest a research based reason to adopt one model over the other. Many articles cited Lobdell, L., & Van Ness, W. (1963) who made a study of the self-contained classroom and the modified self-contained model, which uses specialist teachers for the arts, PE and other non-core subjects. Since then the pendulum has swung from an Australian study The use of subject specialist and generalist teachers in NSW 2010 which argues against forcing the elementary classroom teacher to specialize; to one 2014 Canadian study Specialist Teachers which saw a concern with the increasing use of classroom generalists, and the cutting of specialists.

The literature suggests that specialists were brought in to the elementary school to provide a previously nonexistent arts and wellness curriculum. The positive results prompted further specialization in core subject areas such as Math and Reading. This caused a backlash when students as young as 5 were being instructed by more than five teachers, and no longer feeling the security of staying in one room with one caretaker.

With the lack of any evidence linking the current organizational structure to a significant impact on student achievement, a wide variety of teacher allocation models have arisen in schools today. One study focused on the reasons that led principals to adopt one method over another. Many administrators relied on trial and error. They wanted their classroom teachers to focus on basic skills only, and used the specialists as support teachers to alleviate the lesson load and assist with scheduling.

One study that showed concrete positive results for using a specialist in the classroom was done on a BLS class in primary school(2016). In this case the students who were taught the technique by an outside specialist shower higher ability in the skill than those taught by a classroom generalist.

There are some studies that have found, in elementary schools, a correlation between the hiring of a math or literacy coach, with higher student performance in those areas. However, they are the first ones to agree, the results may be due to the fact that districts who can afford to hire specialists often have more resources, and their student population is made up of a higher economic families.

With the absence of evidence for or against the use of specialist teachers in the elementary classroom, thinking has settled on the following: models using classroom generalists benefit the students, whereas models using specialists in come capacity offer greater benefit for the teacher. The benefits for the student seems to cover the social side of relationships, connectedness and a feeling of security; where the teacher gains confidence, planning time and greater job satisfaction. Another study out of Iowa Elementary School Organization: Self-Contained and Departmentalized Classroom Structures.(1989) found no evidence of the effect of organizational structure on student achievement or development. If this holds true, then we can conclude that students will learn in a variety of models, with both generalists and specialists, in just one room, or moving between physical areas.

One last study, by Brobst, J. A., & Markworth, K. A. (2019): Elementary content specialization: Perspectives on perils and promise, echoed this last assumption. Although the study only took into account the teaching of Math and Science in the elementary school, it found one challenge to implementing specialists was the generalists concern for losing control of their students' learning. The classroom teacher feels great ownership and responsibility over their class, and is reluctant to allow another teacher to share in the teaching. The study suggested that the best use for specialists in the elementary school was for professional development, in assisting and supporting the classroom generalist. This would support the need for collaboration between specialist and generalist, with one offering enrichment and depth to the other's curriculum.

*Photos taken during specialist classes at the American International School of Abuja, Nigeria.