Creativity Re-Examinedin Light of Piaget, Papert,and Bloom

Spring CUE ConferencePalm Springs, CaliforniaThursday March 15, 2012 11:00am - 12:00pmMesquite G 277 North Avendia Caballeros

Participate in the Presentation: http://bit.ly/mkAdUB

Enter this url to open up a collaborative Google Doc where you can add questions and comments during the presentation. In particular when we get to the part where the four tests are described, you can enter example classroom scenarios that you think challenge the proposed model, or that you would like to see explained from the viewpoint of the model.

For example, you might enter, "If students studying Romeo and Juliet take on the roles of the characters for a day, and create tweets as they think would come from that character, is that creative? Is it application or synthesis?". Or you could enter, "Aren't students making a movie about historical characters being creative?".

Hopefully during the course of the presentation, the ideas raised will prompt you to post questions and comments that we will look at in the second half of the presentation.

Note that it's not necessary to include your name in your comment unless you wish to do so. Do try to be careful during editing to not accidentally erase comments entered by other people. Go to the end of the document, press Return a few times, and enter your comments and challenges within one paragraph. Hopefully this will all actually work! :)

Where are we going and why?

Bloom's Taxonomy was originally created as a classification system for the assessment of different categories of learning. It's worth repeating that the taxonomy was designed to assist assessment, and from that to guide the design of lessons that are more effective in pedagogy in light of how they will be assessed.

The more reading and research that I did on Bloom's taxonomy, the more difficult it seemed to be to actually identify activities and work products as being representative of a given level. If that was the case, then how can any classroom teacher effectively and efficiently use the system?

Is it possible to describe a simple set of criteria that would reliably and objectively identify the categories of Bloom's taxonomy?

Here is a diagram that illustrates the conclusion that I'll be working towards in this session:

The overall idea is that there are many different models of learning, whether that is Piaget or Papert, "Project-based learning" or Renzulli's Triad Enrichment model, and that they all describe an underlying fundamental "truth" about how people learn, and how they use what they've learned in solving problems. However, Piaget and Papert both have "constructing" at their core. For Piaget, the "constructivism" is the learner constructing new mental models of their world in response to conflicts that arise from their current model. Papert takes this to a physical dimension with constructionism, believing that interaction with, and the creation of, physical objects is essential to the learning process.

The diagram attempts to illustrate that these different learning models are all different views of a basic cycle of learning, and that the categories within that learning process can be assessed with four simple and highly objective tests.

and that those tests need to be done while being mindful of both the content being taught and the technology that is being used as the expressive medium. It should also be noted that without the ability to express, none of the categories can be assessed. Student self-expression is essential for an accurate assessement, and without which, application and synthesis are impossible.

Bloom's Taxonomy (1956) and Bloom's Revised Taxonomy (2001)

* Bloom's Revised Taxonomy: "Create" is at the top, sounds great! If my students are "creating", then they're at the highest-order thinking skill. Creating is fun, easy, and I'm right there at the finish-line for my job review! Cool!

Anderson, Lorin W. & Krathwohl, David R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: a Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy. New York. Longman Publishing.

Here is a chart that was made to help teachers categorize classroom activities according to the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy:

For "Apply", it says "illustrate", but isn't that being creative? It also says "solve". But doesn't that require analyzing alternative solutions and evaluating their value to the objective?

For "Understand", it says, "translate", but isn't that just "Recall" of word meanings?

Let's try another...

This one actually includes (mostly) student-created products (projects).

* First off, they've combined Remember and Understand, which to me are categories with a huge distance between them, but let's look a little further...

* For "Remember/Understand", it has "films, books, newspapers, etc.". It would seem that those are actually "inputs" to the learning process, not products ("outputs"). Maybe we'll have better luck with another segment.

* For "Analyze" it shows "dissect", but isn't a student's first dissection really just a combination of recall (how they were shown to do it) and observing? But "observe" is over there under "Remember".

Bloom's Revised Digital Taxonomy

In 2009, Andrew Churches proposed additional verbs encompassing digital activities called "Bloom's Revised Digital Taxonomy":

http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/file/view/bloom%27s+Digital+taxonomy+v3.01.pdf

described at:

http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/Bloom%27s+Digital+Taxonomy

For "applying" it lists "sharing" as an identifying verb. Does that mean that passing the answers to a test are application?

Does the fact that a particular form of technology was used indicated a higher order thinking skill? Would using a 3-color pen indicate a higher level than using a pencil?

Are "Analyze and Evaluation" really separate levels?

* Looking more at Analyze and Evaluate raises a question: Is it possible to do any of the activities that really would be "Understand", "Apply" and "Create" without having to do the verbs that we see used in the process of analyzing and evaluating?

Can you "create" without comparing possible solutions to the project objective. Can you classify things (seen in "Apply") without comparing?

Here's another list of activities:

Knowledge : Information Gathering (knowing)

Describe the costs and benefits of staging the Olympics.

Define the meaning of the Olympic Motto.

Label any Olympic sporting apparatus with design features.

Locate any sporting apparatus from games before 1960 and compare with today's apparatus.

Write a news report.

Draw a new symbol for the 2000 Olympics.

Identify problems that will occur at the Sydney Olympics.

Select an athlete and follow their progress through the games.

(http://www.teachers.ash.org.au/researchskills/Question.htm)

-> How can "Identify problems that will occur at the Sydney Olympics." be done without evaluation and analysis? Without comparing and contrasting relative risks and consequences of imagined scenarios?

-> In fact, is there anything on the list that doesn't require the activities seen in the Evalute and Analyze portion of the other chart?

My view is that analysis and evaluation are particularly required to make the transition between Remember and Understand (Recall and Comprehension), and that analysis and evaluation are an integral part of what takes place during Application and Creation.

Various learning models, from Piaget and Papert, to Renzulli and Treffinger, essentially attempt to explain how the "analyze and evaluate" "processes" work as the learner moves through the different phases, and how to improve the process through an informed pedagogy.

Create - Is it really that special? Create vs. Synthesis.

-> If an elephant barfs on a piece of paper, is it creativity? (And, after all, I've heard that elephants are pretty smart).

In fact, here's a video of an elephant painting:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1203547/original_elephant_painting/

Is this "creativity"? Does this demonstrate the highest level of learning and higher-order thinking?

* Looking at this slide from a presentation on Bloom:

(http://www.waynecountyschools.org/147210622111220523/lib/147210622111220523/Revised_Blooms_Info.pdf)

Apparently from here: Dalton, J. & Smith, D. (1986) “Extending Children’s Special Abilities – Strategies for primary classrooms” pp36-7

http://www.teachers.ash.org.au/researchskills/dalton.htm

It looks like there is "creating" taking place in many of the activies. Does that mean that while doing recall we are already "creating"?

The problem with "create" is that the word simply means, "to bring into existence".

By that definition, the elephant barfing IS being "creative", and so is pretty much any classroom activity where a pencil, crayon, brush or scissors touches paper, and pretty much any non-passive (non-consuming) activity that you can imagine on a computer or mobile device.

By contrast (feel free to compare, analyze and evaluate), here is the definition for "synthesize":

and,

I particularly like 2b. :)

Looking at the original Bloom, this seems to me to be a more fitting aspiration, and certainly a word with richer sub-meanings than "create".

So rather than this,

I really prefer the original Bloom:

Also, Revised Bloom's uses verbs; original Bloom's uses nouns. People liked the idea of verbs being an action, but the problem is that a verb requires a measurement of its degree of action. A noun for the most part either "is" or "isn't". From a practical standpoint, it's easier to observe something that either "is" or "isn't" in a classroom activity than trying to define an accurate and repeatable measurement system for the verbs that we see on many of the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy charts.

Four Simple Tests for Four Categories of Bloom's Taxonomy.

To my way of thinking, the larger the number of things that seem to qualify a student response or behavior, the more difficult it is to actually have a clear and objective measure. The science and math guy in me prefers “water is H20” to a hundred words trying to tell me what water sort of seems to be.

from: http://softchalkconnect.com/lesson/files/8wXSLynRaeBOP6/Learning_Outcomes_Lesson_print.html

What I'm looking for is a simple, objective "test" that can be applied to a student activity or project to discern which of the four categories are being demonstrated, and that can be reasonably agreed upon by most teachers, observers, and students as being a reasonable demonstration of a given level in the taxonomy.

Here is what I've come up with:

Recall: “Repeating what was previously read, seen, heard, or demonstrated.”

Comprehension: “Re-expressing without using what was already read, seen, heard or demonstrated.”

Application: "Solve a new problem with a solution that is already known."

Synthesis: “Solve a problem with combined solutions that are not already known.”

Example Scenarios

Imagine a classroom with a student, a teacher, and an impartial objective observer. For this you can even imagine the observer with the usual white lab coat and clipboard taking notes. For 21st century classooms we'll allow a tablet, but the white coat is still helpful.

Let's take a look at different scenarios and student projects and try out these tests to see which parts qualify as recall, comprehension, application or synthesis.

Recall

Imagine a teacher shows a student a map of the U.S. with the states named. Then later, the teacher shows the student a picture of a given state outline, and asks the student, "What is the name of that state?" If the student replies with the correct name, then that is recall, because the student used the exact words and images that were given to them earlier by the teacher. Our observer with the clipboard, sorry… tablet, notes it as such.

If the teacher then asks, "What are 'states'", and the student replies with a list of the names that they remember, or can draw rough outlines of the shapes of different states, then that is also recall.

Recall is repeating what was previously read, seen, heard, or demonstrated.

Comprehension

However, if the student responds instead with a story, and can explain the idea of "states" without using phrases or images that were already given to them by the teacher (or someone else), then our observer will note it as demonstrating comprehension.

For example, imagine that the student is now observed explaining "states" to a younger student. First imagine that the student simply repeats what they were previously shown by the teacher: a labeled map. But then imagine that instead, the older student acts more like a parent (instinctively, many parents actually "get" this part), and tells something like a story: "In a big country like the U.S., people decided to separate out different areas to make it easier to manage. Sometimes they used a river or some mountains to decide where to make the lines that divide the areas. Sometimes they just drew a line on a map. The different areas that they ended up with are called "states".

Notice that in the second case, except for the concluding sentence at the end, none of the words or images that the teacher originally gave the older student are used in the explanation. This is the one definitive demonstration of "understanding" or "comprehension".

Comprehension is demonstrated by re-expressing without using what was already read, seen, heard or demonstrated.

Why? Because it's impossible to correctly re-express a concept without actually comprehending it. And in fact, it is equally impossible for the teacher, or our objective observer, to know whether the re-expression is correct unless they themselves also comprehend the concept.

Important point: If the teacher uses the above explanation about large countries, rivers, etc. to describe "states", or if the student is given the same or alternate explanation by someone else (parent, another student, Internet resource, etc.), then that particular explanation is then excluded from a response that would qualify as comprehension? Why? Because the use of the explanation gained from another source would then again just be repeating, and not re-expressing. That is, it would just be recall.

This is the reason that a professional educator is required for there to be the most successful learning environment possible. By professional educator, it means someone who has been trained to be aware of both best practice pedagogical techniques for instruction, who actually understands the concepts that they are teaching so as to be able to correctly assess the accuracy of the re-expression, and also to maintain an ongoing awareness of what "answers" have already been given to the learner so as to be able to specifically exclude those pre-given answers to any later measure of whether comprehension is being demonstrated.

Application

Now imagine that the teacher asks the student to take a topographical map of a region that has not been divided into "states" (or countries for that matter), and to use what they've learned about the idea of how states or countries are delineated, and to make their own new map. This would be an example of application, because although the possible solutions (rivers or mountain ranges) are known to the student, the particular problem itself (the given map) does not yet have a known solution. The student can only create the application example if they

have an underlying comprehension of the concept, and demonstrates it for a problem that they have not previously seen.

Application is the process of matching the new problem given with an available inventory of known solutions. For that it will be necessary to re-express the given problem to match an available already-known solution.

Application is solving a new problem for which the solution is already known, but which is not immediately obvious as the solution.

Synthesis

For synthesis, the teacher could now present the problem, or the student could self-initiate it, of saying, "Can you write a description of alternate ways that the states of the United States, or countries of Europe, could have been delineated?" Or, "Can you create a map of the Middle East with countries delineated based on your own explanation for the reasons that you have chosen?".

In that case, the student must consider what they have learned and applied with known solutions, and then essentially "invent" new criterion for delineating states or countries. I could give examples here of what those might be, but in given the examples, I would eliminate those from the possible solutions that I'd like you to now consider.

Take a moment to turn to your neighbor, and discuss ways other than rivers and mountain ranges that states or countries could be delineated. If you are already aware of systems such as lines of latitude or longitude, or use of language over a geographic area, exlude those from your possible solutions. The challenge is, can you think of something that you didn't already have "in your inventory" of state and country borders?

<5 minutes for discussion of possible border-drawing schemes>

Synthesis is solving problem for which the solution is not already known (not already given to the student by the teacher or another

source), and which requires bringing together multiple solutions to create something that clear didn't exist before. "Intention" is an important aspect and is implied by the objective of solving a problem. The problem itself need not be independently initiated by the student, but the solution(s) to the problem do need to be such that they have independently put them together for solving the problem. If the student "looks up" the answer, or simply gets "the answer" from another source (friend, parent, Internet search, etc.) then that invalidates that response as demonstrating synthesis.

This may seem to be a harsh criterion, but it is a realistic measure of whether true synthesis is taking place. For example, if the student is presented with a topological puzzle ("Can you connect 9 dots with 4 lines?"), and solves the problem through their own experimentation and insight, then that would demonstrate synthesis. But if a friend just shows them the "trick", then repeating it is simple recall.

Thus, if the challenge is to create a timeline of historical events, and the student already knows how to order events by date, and is familiar with the concept of timelines, then the creation of the timeline is at best application, not "synthesis", or being "creative" in a meaningful way.

Synthesis (real creativity) is solving a problem with combined solutions that are not already known.

The learning cycle in young children, and why it's understandable for it to diminish with age.

The leap from application to synthesis can happen very quickly for simple concepts and/or clever students, or more slowly in other cases. Experimentation is an important ingredient, because if the solution/answer/process is not known, some degree of experimentation on the part of the learning is always required. It may be a visible, physical experimentation on the part of the learner, or it may take place solely in a mental space, as the learner imagines the possible outcomes. By the way, one of the famous examples of this are Einstein's thought experiments.

For a young child, the process of experimentation, analysis, and evaluation take place almost simulataneously with the initial presentation of the information, because there are very few "already known" solutions to problems. As they age to become adults, people increasingly rely (as they should) on already-known solutions. This is faster and more efficient, and does explain why adults are less explorative and experimentive. It's not necessarily a bad thing, and it's also why many scientific breakthroughs are made by young scientists in their early 20s, or sometimes even younger.

It's very true that the recall of solutions is much faster than the process for synthesis. If you see a car coming at you, and you jump out of the way, because you learned to do that early on, it's more efficient, and has a higher survival value than pondering other possible solutions which are as yet unknown to you. Of course, when there is no known solution to anyone, making recall impossible, such as what to do about a growing ozone hole over the poles, or how to make a practical working light bulb in 1878, then true synthesis is the only way to create a solution.

Note: To get an insight into just how much of Edison's light bulb was "new", and how much was matching known solutions with a given problem (application), see this description of the history of the incandescent bulb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb#Early_pre-commercial_research

It's understandable then, that for a very young child, everything is a huge swirl of recall, comprehension, application, and synthesis, and Piaget and Papert describe this process through the models of constructivism and constructionism. However, as people get older, they are able to (and desirably so) act quickly and efficiently on a growing body of remembered behaviors. In fact, the huge body of this knowledge is what gives values to "the elders", who can often say, "I've seen this before, and I can tell you what's going to happen.". On the other hand, in a world that is now changing more and more rapidly, the ability to extend the skills of application and synthesis into later years of life is essential for job security, productivity, and even the long term viability of a democracy.

The Circular Nature of the Categories

Simply put, this is just the observation that no matter how clever and innovative the re-expression is that demonstrates "comprehension", once the learner has used it themselves, the next time they use it, they will be back at recall. We have all had the experience of coming up with a new way of explaining something that particularly pleases us, and then going back to that explanation in future years while teaching that class. Even though the first time qualified as "comprehension", and demonstrated a new insight and understanding of the content, the later repetition of that is simply recall. It doesn't mean that the comprehension is lost, only that from the standpoint of an impartial observer, we don't know years later whether the teacher (or student in adult life) still retains the comprehension of the concept, or is simply repeating what they remember as the correct explanation of something, even if they did (back then) come up with that explanation themselves. Only by demonstrating new re-expressions of the concept would our impartial observer be able to say that they had continued to demonstrate that their comprehension of the concept had been retained.

The rationale behind the cycle is that even if the solution to a problem wasn’t known to the learner the first time a new problem was encountered, and thus qualified as a demonstration of comprehension, the next time the problem is encountered, the previously “new” solution would be remembered from before, and once again be recall. In fact, even the highest level of synthesis, having been done once, itself becomes recall when the learner uses what was learned previously and demonstrated by “synthesis” in a repeat of the demonstration. In fact, the overall learning process of life is one where the “revelation of learning” at one age becomes the “of course I know that” at a later

age.

Likewise, for someone that invents something totally new, some extraordinary demonstration of synthesis, once that solution to a problem is known, repeating it just reverts to recall. It is only the further elaboration and improvement (for example) that would demonstrate further examples of synthesis.

TPACK: Technology, Pedagogy, Content Knowledge

"Any sufficiently novel use of technology is indistinguishable from real learning" - Roger Wagner paraphrasing Arthur C. Clark

… <Short introduction of TPACK here…> ( http://mkoehler.educ.msu.edu/tpack/what-is-tpack/ and http://www.tpck.org/ )

Teachers, parents, administrators and even the students themselves make assessments every day as to which categories in Bloom's taxonomy different responses or activities can be ascribed. A big challenge is that the four tests can be applied to the use of the technology processes used in a project as well as the content itself.

That is to say, it's quite easy to find instances where someone will say, "The student was creative, and demonstrated higher-order thinking skills because they made a movie!". However, there are two parts to this: a) the skills required to "make a movie", and b) the demonstration of the learning that took place with respect to the content. Quite often, students, parents, teachers, and even administrators mistake what might even be a legitimate demonstration of "synthesis" with the technology for being a demonstration of synthesis regarding the content.

Because newer technologies are, well, "new", their use does often seem to satisfy the four tests presented here, and in the process, distract us from asking the same questions about the content.

Let's look at the following series of examples of technology-using student-made activities and projects, and de-construct it with respect to the four tests being applied separately to technology and content.

Challenge the Model: http://bit.ly/mkAdUBRemember, you can enter this url to open up the collaborative Google Doc where you can add questions and comments during the

presentation of these examples. As we discuss those examples, you can enter descriptions of your own example classroom scenarios that challenge the proposed model, or that you would like to see explained from the viewpoint of the model.

Critiquing an example lesson plan: Goldilocks and the Three Bears:

Using the Revised Taxonomy in an adaptation from the Omaha Public Schools Teacher's Corner, a lesson objective based upon the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears is presented for each of the six levels of the Cognitive Process as shown on the Revised Taxonomy Table.Remember: Describe where Goldilocks lived.Understand: Summarize what the Goldilocks story was about.Apply: Construct a theory as to why Goldilocks went into the house.

Analyze: Differentiate between how Goldilocks reacted and how you would react in each story event.Evaluate: Assess whether or not you think this really happened to Goldilocks.

Create: Compose a song, skit, poem, or rap to convey the Goldilocks story in a new form.Although this is a very simple example of the application of Bloom's taxonomy the author is hopeful that it will demonstrate both the ease and the usefulness of the Revised Taxonomy Table.

from: http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Bloom%27s_Taxonomy

Removing Analyze & Evaluate from the list, added below are activities more closely aligned with the "four tests":

Remember: Describe where Goldilocks lived.-> Repeat the story; repeat the use of the technologyUnderstand: Summarize what the Goldilocks story was about.-> Re-express the story; use the technology in a variation of a known form.Apply: Construct a theory as to why Goldilocks went into the house.-> Use already known experiences; illustrate the theory with known media techniques.Create: Compose a song, skit, poem, or rap to convey the Goldilocks story in a new form.-> Synthesize a clearly new work demonstrating new literary techniques-> Produce a new media work that requires using previously unknown techniques.

< Further sample projects explored here…>

Conclusion:

In a sense, these four tests are like rules to a game. In the beginning, it may not actually seem that easy for you to separate the technology from the content, and to easily classify activities into Bloom's categories. However, with practice, you'll not only get better at it, but find that the rules themselves make this process easier than with any other alternative system.

In fact, ultimately I think you'll find it easier and more effective to practice getting better at this model:

than this one:

Also, it's worth noting that your students themselves will do better in their projects, and thinking about their own thinking (metacognition), if they have this same illustration to refer to, and if you discuss the principles witht them on which they will be assessed.

I would greatly enjoy hearing from you in the future as you explore this, both with challenges, and any comments you have about whether this has helped improve your classroom teaching experience.

--

Postscript: Valuing "creativity" (or synthesis) over all other activities.

Because "create" is at the top of the revised Bloom's taxonomy, and because "creating" can be so easily applied to an activity, there has been

a marked tendency to emphasize this as a classroom activity and objective at the expense of the other categories.

The problem is that recall is necessary for comprehension, comprehension for application, and application for synthesis.

In fact, you can think of it rather like a "food pyramid":

You can't re-express something without having a large vocabulary of other words (that you already comprehend) with which to do the re-expression. The only way to solve a newly presented problem is to have available a lot of ….. work on this part more… if the solution to the problem is already known, then it's just recall, other than having to match the problem with the available inventory of known solutions.

Application is the process of matching the given problem with the available inventory of known solutions. For that it may be necesary to re-express the given problem to match a known solution.

For Synthesis, a huge number of previously known solutions need to be available for combination to result in a previously unknown solution to a challenge, and resulting in a new and unique product.

======