The Best Recipe for Creativity is Allowing it to Happen

As my second graduate course in matriculating through the Master’s in Educational Technology (MAET) program at Michigan State University, CEP 811: Adapting Innovative Technologies in Education, comes to an end, I feel incredibly inspired.

I must admit, although at times I have a tendency to succumb to a cynical view of the current state of our world, there has never been a more exciting time to be a student, or teacher. We, as educators, are witnessing classrooms moving away from the traditional 'factory models' and transitioning into fluid learning spaces, encompassing open-collaborative features, welcoming colors, and technology that supports creativity and innovation (OWP/P Architects, VS Furniture, & Bruce Mau Design, 2010).

Further, our students are being given opportunities to take on projects that showcase a side of them we have never seen before. Take my Imagineering class for example, where students take on a project of their choosing, create a proposal, set goals, outline a detailed plan, work on achieving their goals for an entire marking period, and ultimately produce something upon completion of the process. Of note, the course was modeled after Google’s 20 percent time, otherwise known as Genius Hour or 20Time in the classroom. The concept, although gaining popularity in educational settings, is still quite unconventional.

Nevertheless, there is one crucial factor that has made my own teaching experience significantly more impactful for myself and my students — abolishing limitations. CEP 811 has provided me with a wealth of knowledge on learning through Maker Ed activities, proving that if we restrict our students’ ability to be imaginative, take risks and demonstrate passion for what they are working on in a classroom setting, we are completely missing the mark when it comes to harnessing their full and unique potential.

For instance, for the past two years teaching Imagineering, I required my students to work in groups on their projects, even though some of them had stressed their desire to work independently. My thought was that, by urging them to collaborate, it would enhance their teamwork and problem solving skills. While there were some groups that created impressive projects, fully immersing themselves in their work, this was unfortunately far from the norm. Additionally, some of their ideas were too outlandish given our resources and project scope, leading me to sway them in different directions. Wow, was my initial thinking wrong.

This marking period, after beginning CEP 811, I decided I would teach the course to fit its true purpose — providing students with full autonomy. I allowed students to work independently if they desired and said “yes” to their ideas, even if I was reluctant. I cannot begin to describe how fulfilling it has been to witness students fully engaged and devoted to their work.

The moment we begin limiting students’ ability to think and act creatively is the moment we lose them. If we expect our students to be innovative and critical thinkers, we must give them the necessary space, technology, autonomy and encouragement to do so.

I would like to close my thoughts with a poem I wrote:

OWP/P Architects, VS Furniture, & Bruce Mau Design. (2010). The third teacher: 79 ways you can use design to transform teaching & learning. Retrieved from http://thethirdteacherplus.com/s/Ch2-TTT-for-Web-0y6k.pdf

Assessing Creativity

As a fifth-year educator, I consider myself fortunate having taught a multitude of subjects, beginning with business courses to currently teaching digital technology and STEM courses. Initially, I received my undergraduate degree in Business, later receiving my teacher certificate; therefore, my general knowledge of pedagogy was minimal. During my first year of teaching, I learned a great deal about the importance of formatively and summatively assessing students — most notably utilizing rubrics as a way to clearly define criteria and expectations to students.

Photo by The Creative Exchange on Unsplash

For students in a financial literacy class tasked with effectively creating a budget worksheet or analyzing a simulated portfolio of stocks, criteria for assessing were straightforward. Contrarily, when tasking students with creatively solving problems — whether for design challenges, problem-based learning or inquiry-based learning projects — the task of outlining criteria becomes much more expansive. Effectively assessing students’ learning via maker-inspired activities requires a deeper look into what creativity is and how educators evaluate whether or not a student displays such qualities in their work.

Ask any given person to define ‘creativity’ and you will receive a wealth of responses along with, perhaps, some perplexed looks. Most of us can spot a creative idea when we see one, however defining the word is surprisingly challenging; the reason being, creativity is not defined by one specific indicator, rather many of which include, imagination, style, cleverness and the ability to impact others (Wiggins, 2012).

In full disclosure, upon reading Grant Wiggin’s insights on assessing creativity, I was apprehensive to believing I could effectively and objectively assess that of my own students. Although, by not providing my students with concrete objectives and feedback regarding creativity, both formatively and summatively, my efforts are falling short. Further, if my students understand specifically what creative problem-solving consists of, they can more accurately assess their own creativity skills and adapt when necessary.

For example, take the classroom design challenge that I recently published, which tasks students with creating an interactive prototype of their ideal classroom using Makey Makey and scratch.mit.edu, and presenting their prototypes to their classmates. By nature, the project urges students to think creatively, yet I plan on using this Creativity & Innovation Rubric designed by the Buck Institute for Education (BIE) to provide students with specific assessment criteria and expectations (2013). The rubric encompassess criteria for the process students will go through, along with their finished product. Since the design challenge is proposed for my Introduction to Engineering classes, where we regularly utilize the engineering design process (EDP), it is a sufficient way to hold students accountable for not only going through all steps of the EDP, but emphasizing how creative their efforts are. For their final product, the rubric assesses three qualities: originality, value and style. It is simple and digestible for middle school students.

An impactful way to have students analyze their creative thinking and problem-solving skills is to require them to set goals and self-reflect on their progress throughout the project. Paired with reviewing the aforementioned Creativity & Innovation Rubric with students prior to beginning the project, it sets clear expectations. Of course, it is the teacher’s responsibility to actively engage in conversation with students, asking strategic questions that urge them to consistently assess their learning and development.

In 2010, IBM polled more than 1,500 Chief Executive Officers and found that they ranked creativity above rigor, discipline, integrity and vision. With today’s society being even more complex and fast-paced, the need for individuals to exhibit creativity is imperative for them to be able to differentiate themselves, their work and their problem solving skills. Indeed, maker-inspired activities foster creative expression (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014), however students must be prompted further than to simply “be creative.”  

As Grant Wiggins stated, “If rubrics are sending the message that a formulaic response on an uninteresting task is what performance assessment is all about, then we are subverting our mission as teachers” (2012). Beyond assessing reading, writing and arithmetic, we, as educators, must foster a productive and objective way to equip students with the necessary foresight to understand and implement creativity across their work and learning process.

Buck Institute for Education. (2013). 6-12 Creativity & Innovation Rubric (CCSS Aligned). Retrieved from http://www.bie.org/object/document/6_12_creativity_innovation_rubric_ccss_aligned

Halverson, E.R. & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495-465.

IBM. (2010, May 18). IBM 2010 Global CEO Study: Creativity Selected as Most Crucial Factor for Future Success. Retrieved from https://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/31670.wss

Wiggins, G. (2012, February 3). On assessing for creativity: yes you can, and yes you should. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/on-assessing-for-creativity-yes-you-can-and-yes-you-should/

Makerspace: Literally

If you work in education, chances are you have heard of a ‘makerspace’ or, perhaps, you have one at your school or place of business. I cannot help but notice that many people seem to throw the term around without a true understanding of what it actually means. Makerspaces have become a must-have for any future-ready school and, although I agree with the potential they have to enhance learning experiences, it is crucial that we understand the characteristics before putting hammer to nail.

Helping to clarify any confusion, below is an infographic I created, which explains: a) what a makerspace is, b) where they are typically formed, c) what types of equipment and tools they include, d) why they are so popular and e) what they can look like. Of note, it is important to remember that offering a makerspace to individuals will only prove to be as successful as the curiosity they possess, their desire to learn, and their willingness to participate. Nevertheless, I am a firm believer that, when people witness others around them creating, it inspires them to join, contributing to the iterative process that fuels innovation.

As always, I welcome any comments, questions or feedback you may have!

Explee TM (2014). What is a MakerSpace? Retrieved from https://youtu.be/NLEJLOB6fDw

Florin, F. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/fabola/22521685607/in/photostream/

Halverson, E.R. & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495-465.

Male, M. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/mastermaq/18962871653

Sheridan, K. Halverson, E.R., Litts, B.K., Brahms, L, Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014) Learning in the making: A comparative case-study of three maker spaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505-565.