By cognitive process do you mean skill? I think we can invite students to be creative, and even structure that to an extent, but we can't teach the skill of being creative. My view is that creativity requires understanding of the boundaries of a field, which is essentially knowledge. A bit like critical thinking.
"If teachers deserve a cheer for their teaching of creative skills, then creativity must be a proxy for knowledge. This is where the PISA data story falls apart. All other subjects have been in decline."
How can you explain that students in Australia got good results in creativity and poor in literacy if the former is a proxy of the latter?
Most discussion of creativity that I’ve read coming from the science of learning (SoL) camp has to to do with problem solving in core academic areas. I’m a middle school music teacher and high school jazz ensemble teacher. I have something of a different perspective on direct or explicit instruction, instructional hierarchy, musical problem solving, and the connection of content to creativity. I teach music theory. I teach fingerings and home practice techniques. I push for performance fluency. I do lots of spaced retrieval practice in this domain. AND I guide students to improvise and compose.
I would love to hear the thoughts of others here, but this may be an example of domain specificity regarding creativity. Regarding creative work, students and I can discuss what we like and have doubts about and why. We can compare to other creative work. We can analytically talk about elements like repetition, key changes, texture, etc. But is the quality quantifiable? Do I really want to attach a number to this kind of work in music?
There is no doubt that the content here is foundational, but is the link from content to creativity the same in music (or fine arts in general) as it is in other academic areas?
Is creativity mostly a cognitive process? (i’ve been quite intrigued by the notion that creativity can or cannot be taught for about 45 years.) 🤔
By cognitive process do you mean skill? I think we can invite students to be creative, and even structure that to an extent, but we can't teach the skill of being creative. My view is that creativity requires understanding of the boundaries of a field, which is essentially knowledge. A bit like critical thinking.
"If teachers deserve a cheer for their teaching of creative skills, then creativity must be a proxy for knowledge. This is where the PISA data story falls apart. All other subjects have been in decline."
How can you explain that students in Australia got good results in creativity and poor in literacy if the former is a proxy of the latter?
Most discussion of creativity that I’ve read coming from the science of learning (SoL) camp has to to do with problem solving in core academic areas. I’m a middle school music teacher and high school jazz ensemble teacher. I have something of a different perspective on direct or explicit instruction, instructional hierarchy, musical problem solving, and the connection of content to creativity. I teach music theory. I teach fingerings and home practice techniques. I push for performance fluency. I do lots of spaced retrieval practice in this domain. AND I guide students to improvise and compose.
I would love to hear the thoughts of others here, but this may be an example of domain specificity regarding creativity. Regarding creative work, students and I can discuss what we like and have doubts about and why. We can compare to other creative work. We can analytically talk about elements like repetition, key changes, texture, etc. But is the quality quantifiable? Do I really want to attach a number to this kind of work in music?
There is no doubt that the content here is foundational, but is the link from content to creativity the same in music (or fine arts in general) as it is in other academic areas?