Teacher Bias Against Creativity

Today we discussed an article by Kaufman and Beghetto that referenced a bias teachers were having against more creative students in their classrooms. However, I felt that the paper was combining two things that are not automatically related. In the article it mentioned that there was a correlation between highly creative students and students with behavioral problems such as outbursts, not following instructions, and inability to stay on task. Because of these issues in the classroom the teacher's then have a tendency to have a negative bias for the more creative students.

I was really uncomfortable with that idea. Obviously, I understand the connection between the two. However, I find it hard to believe that every single child who is talented creatively is also having issues with behavior in the classroom. Reversely, I'm sure every child who is presenting behavioral problems is not excessively creative. As adults, teachers should be able to differentiate between the behavior of students and the positivity that comes with creativity. Further than that, teachers should be making very clear to their students that it is not their creativity that is the problem. Obviously I see the benefits of teaching students that there is an appropriate time for everything and the importance of being able to follow instructions. I think that mixing poor behavior and creativity sends a horrible message to students, and should be treated in completely separate manners.

Inception

Something that has been on my mind a lot during class lately is an idea that is presented in the movie Inception. In the movie, Leonardo DiCaprio is trying to plant an idea in a person's head and have them still believe the idea was theirs originally. When first presented with this task, he denies and says it is not possible. He believes there is no such thing as an original idea. There are too many other factors that influence ideas, such as things other people say or things you see. I find this to be a fascinating concept.

I have no idea how this could ever be proven. But when you think about it, it is a valid point. There are so many songs, pieces of art, books, and movies. It would be hard to come up with an idea that is completely original and uninfluenced by anything else you have read or seen. You may be completing work that is similar to something already done and have no idea. There are so many pieces of creativity in existence there would be no way to know what has already been done before you. This would also tie into the debate of whether or not expertise is beneficial or a hindrance. Having expertise in a field would allow you to know more of what has already been created, but knowing about all these creations may cloud your own view of what you aspire to create.

This would have been an interesting question to have asked our panel the other day in class. I wonder if they think ideas can ever be truly original, or if they draw too much inspiration from the world around the creator.

Literature Review

I am writing my literature review on supporting the theory of multiple intelligences with research done on savant syndrome, autism, and giftedness. I want to use the evidence of extremely high intelligence in some areas and low IQ overall to fight the argument that there is one general intelligence. I am pretty excited about this topic because I find it so interesting. I've been finding research that supports what I've proposed and I can't wait to read more about it. Without having done much of the research yet, my biggest concern of evidence to disregard my theory would be that these cases are special. They cannot support the idea of multiple intelligences because these cases are so extreme they do not correlate to the general population. Maybe I will find research on that as well. I am looking forward to starting to get into the information.

Measurement of Creativity

This week in class we discussed what are the best measures of creativity. In the beginning of class we even tested out some simple measures used to asses creativity. When thinking about how to best approach this I do not think there is a clear solution.

The problem with creativity is that it can be expressed in almost countless domains. When thinking about intelligence there were multiple kinds (in my opinion) but still few enough major categories that could be mainly looked at. But to me, there are literally endless possibilities to exercise creativity. For example, you can be creative in the original ways such as art, music, design, and writing etc. However, if you define creativity as original ideas as I do, then you can be creative in literally any capacity. For example, one could exercise creativity in a business plan, in their financing, in sports, or in their parenting.

The reason I feel there is no truly good measure of creativity itself is because you cannot compare things that are so different. Obviously you could compare musical creativity to other musical creativity (to an extent) but you cannot compare a general sense of creativity over all domains.

Multiple Creativities

When we were discussing intelligence in class we were frequently asking the question "Is intelligence one general quality or multiple things?" This question has come to mind for me several times now in our discussions of creativity. I feel there are so many domains that a person can be creative in.

For example, there are countless forms of expression, art, and creativity just as their are countless subjects and areas of knowledge to have intelligence in. Someone could be talented in art or music or design. Even more specific than that someone who is talented at art may really only consider themselves a sculptor, a drawer, or a painter. I think it is easy to see how multiple creativities exist.

The book brought up a great point that it is rare to find a person who is extremely talented in creativity in multiple domains. Famous artists such as musicians are typically only recognized for their exception music, not their music and their art work. This theory of multiple creativities leads to many other questions just as there were with intelligence. Is there a threshold of creativity that people cannot break? Is creativity inherited or learned? Does knowledge inhibit creativity and vice versa? I am excited to discuss these questions in class in more detail and hear others opinions.

Creativity

One of the topics we debate in this class is whether or not creativity should be considered in admissions decisions. This week in my Professional Writing class we had a guest speaker who graduated from Elizabethtown. She now works as a graphic designer and is involved in hiring new employees at her company. When she was describing to us the hiring process she told us one of their favorite questions to ask employees is "If you could take down any animal with only your bare hands what would it be?" This sounds like a bizarre interview question. She explained that they use this question so often because it gives them a feel for their potential employee's creativity and personality.

This got me thinking about the upcoming topic in our class. Obviously, creativity is an attractive quality in employees not just for art or design but for problem solving as well. If employers are looking at creativity it would make sense that college admissions would consider it as well. Since the point of college is to educate us to get a good job it would make sense to emphasize the same thing as employers. 

However, I do think this would get very complicated. It would be hard to actually implement a certain creativity component to all the things admissions considers. For example, would creativity majors such as art and music take creativity into consideration more than other majors? If a student has mediocre grades but it extremely talented in terms of creativity what does that mean? I think it would be challenging to find a good balance between the things expected from students when applying to colleges. 

Savants

This is not something we have discussed in class but lately I have been considering savants and what they mean to the debate of multiple intelligences. Savant Syndrome is characterized by a person demonstrating abilities that far exceed normality, usually in one of five areas: art, musical abilities, calender calculations, mathematics, and spatial skills. 50% of savants are autistic and the other 50% have some other type of central nervous system injury or disease. Some savants score extremely low on IQ tests and then exhibit these extraordinary abilities in another area.

This, to me, is very strong evidence towards the belief in multiple intelligences. How else could such a phenomenon be explained. Savants exhibit such incredible abilities and struggle in other areas. For example, a calendrical savant, also known as a human calender, is able to calculate the day of the week on a specific date far in the past or future at an extremely quick pace. However, they would struggle in other areas as all savants do. This confirms that intelligence is not one quality. It can not be assigned as a characteristic one simply has or does not have. Intelligence can be present in some areas and completely absent in others.