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.

The Jim Twins

This week in class we watched a video focusing on the Jim Twins, a bizarre occurrence of identical twins who were separated shortly after birth. When reunited, the Jim's found out they had a huge number of similarities, down to the names of the women they married.

These uncanny resemblances provide serious evidence for nature in the debate of nature vs.nurture. The first time I saw this video I was convinced that this proved our personalities were formed far more through genetics than environment. However, watching it this second time I was far more skeptical. So many of the things the Jim's share in common can only be coincidence. For example, while it makes a great story, genetics had no role in the fact that both twins were named Jim. Similarly, nature could never influence the women that both Jim's married who shared the same name. I do believe that some of the Jim's shared traits come from their similar genetics as identical twins. However, I think this is another case that proves further the deepest connection between nature and nurture that can never truly be separated.

The first thing that came to mind when hearing the Jim's story was what their environments would reveal. Although the Jim twins share a great deal of DNA, this does not mean their environments were so different. If further examination showed that the Jim's lives growing up were similar as well, this would somewhat lessen the connection their story suggests between nature and development.

The video states that this is the only case that shares as many extreme similarities between separated identical twins. If a wider selection of twins that experiences this same situation shared so much in common that would help support the idea that nature is the true predictor of development. However, the fact that the Jim's alone have these identical lives further suggests that they are simply a coincidence.

Our Own Intelligence Theory

At the end of this week's class we discussed how we would set up our own theory of what intelligence is. This is certainly a challenge because intelligence is such as wide and complicated concept. There are so many things that can play a role in intelligence.

First and foremost, I think my own theory would not choose between intelligence being innate and intelligence being developed. I think that both are possible and in many cases they work together. I think that everyone is born with a certain level of intelligence which is then influence by many factors as the child grows and develops. Therefore, it would be impossible, I feel, to truly measure innate intelligence because babies cannot be tested and too many variables occur during childhood. For example, level of education for the child, level of education of the parents, living situation, economic standings, and nutrition. All of these factors make it impossible to separate how much intelligence a person is born with and how much a person develops. On top of that I think there are multiple types of intelligence and being intelligent in one thing and not another is completely possible. We see it all the time with experts in certain fields. They are highly capable in their own specific field, but most likely less so in other fields because that is not where they have spent their time and attention. I do not think intelligence can be assigned to a person as a blanket quality. A person can be highly intelligent in one subject and fail at another. If I were to develop this into a more concise theory I do not think it would be easy to test if even possible. Since I believe that innate intelligence and learned intelligence are so closely intertwined it would only be possible to measure a persons IQ, but not how they came to have that IQ.

This leads me to compare this debate to the nature/nurture debate that is so often discussed in psychology.Through many arguments over which side takes more dominance in development it is my understanding that psychologists have reached a conclusion that it is a combination of both. I feel the same way about intelligence. There will never be only one side that is completely influencing a persons level of intelligence.

Intelligence Tests

This week in class we looked at several different intelligence tests. We also read about tests in the IQ Testing 101 book. I found it particularly interesting to look at the tests designed for children. I work at a day care with children every day, between the ages of 6 weeks and 6 years. I have a pretty good idea of what milestones children are reaching at what ages. The Stanford-Benet test in particular stood out to me because the intelligence tests assigned to certain ages were not challenging enough. For instance, a milestone for children who were 9 years old was the ability to say the date. The children I work with are able to say the date at 4 and 5 years old. This made me consider how children's intelligence tests find a good balance that keeps them challenging but also without being too difficult for the designated age group.

Another thing to consider is how education has progressed over time. For example, I think that intelligence is partly inherited and partly learned. I definitely think it is possible for intelligence tobe obtained through studying a subject. How can you be good at something if you have never been taught it? So my next question is, how has education changed since the Stanford-Benet test was created. Perhaps at that time students were being taught to say the complete date when they were 9 years old. The children I work with are only capable to say the date because it is taught to them and reiterated every single day they are at school. When I was in elementary and middle school my parents always told me they did not learn the things I was learning until a later age. This makes me wonder when it was decided that education should be pushing its students harder and challenging them more at earlier ages.

This in turn would cause intelligence testing to be more challenging as well. The more students are learning in earlier grades the more material they would know to be tested on. This also makes me wonder if this makes people more intelligent over all. If students are learning more challenging material younger are they mastering more difficult material overall by the end of their education? Also, will this be a continuing trend? Will my children come home to tell me they are learning things I did not master until I was several years older than them? These are just some things I was considering when thinking about intelligence testing and our class this week.

Race and IQ

I found our discussion about Race and IQ very interesting. There's so many variables that have to be considered when it comes to intelligence. As we saw in class this past Wednesday there are so many ways to define intelligence it makes it challenging to find a way to measure it. We will cover this more when we debate it in class, but these discussions really led me to think about how I feel there are multiple types of intelligence. There are so many different areas or skills that require a different kind of intelligence.

Another thing that was on my mind a lot during class is how the IQ tests are created to be equal among different people. Testing bias is the first thing I thought of when we were asked to think of reasons for the gap in different races IQ's. Throughout the class period a quote from Albert Einstein continuously came to mind; "If you judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree it will spend it's whole life believing that it is stupid." I thought this quote was relevant because if the test is something only a certain group is good at or some don't have experience with then other groups will certainly score low and have a "low IQ."

My final thought throughout this discussion was the idea that a person can be intelligent in one subject and not in others. For example, if I have a wonderful memory for directions and could go almost anywhere without a map, that might be a quality that encourages people to think I'm intelligent. At the same time, I could be horrible at the most basic math. Then would I still be considered intelligent? It is hard to judge intelligence as one blanket quality when there are so many different ways and areas a person could be intelligent in. We see this all the time with people that are brilliant but have horrible social skills, or people who are particularly good at either math or reading comprehension but not both. Are those people not intelligent because they are only good at certain things? I don't think I have a specific answer, but it is interesting to consider.