Arts Education and A More Beautiful Question - A Masterclass with Warren Berger, Part 2

This is the second post in a series about the best-selling A More Beautiful Question and its lessons for fine arts education.

Warren Berger gives us a three-part framework for improving innovation:  ask why, what if, and how.

Imagine how our classrooms might be transformed by starting with why:

Why did the composer mark these notes staccato? 

Why did Shakespeare choose these words? 

Why did Ansel Adams photograph in black and white? 

Why does (or doesn't) this choreography capture the mood?

Questions drive creativity and innovation.  As arts educators, we are in the creativity business.  We must keep the spark of inquiry alive in our students.

The new National Core Arts Standards (www.nationalartsstandards.org) are written with Essential Questions for each Anchor Standard. Using these questions effectively can promote engagement, and they can enable students to transfer their learning to other situations or disciplines (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005).  Since information is a Google search away, and modern problems require creative solutions, the concept of transfer is critically important to the future of education.

But don't take my word for it.  John Hattie conducted synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses of educational research.  Creativity programs have a high effect on achievement (d=0.65), as does questioning (d=0.46).  Inquiry-based teaching has a medium effect (d=0.31).

Unleash the creative power of your students by questioning rather than answering!

References

Berger, W. (2014). A more beautiful question: The power of inquiry to spark breakthrough ideas. New York, NY: Bloomsbury

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge

Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD

Arts Education and A More Beautiful Question - A Masterclass with Warren Berger, Part 1

Warren Berger's brilliant book A More Beautiful Question is a hit on the creativity and innovation scene.  It currently has an Amazon rank of #8 in neuroscience, #14 in decision-making and problem solving, and #23 in entrepreneurship.

Credit:  warrenberger.com

Berger seems to have a kinship with the arts - the title is taken from a line by the poet e.e. cummings.

The premise of the book is disarmingly simple but profound in its implications:  If questioning is the engine of innovation, why aren't we doing more to develop that skill?

His answer is spot on.

"To encourage or even allow questioning is to cede power - not something that is done lightly in hierarchical companies or in government organizations, or even in classrooms, where a teacher must be willing to give up control to allow for more questioning" (2014, p. 6).

Berger developed a three part framework - Why/What If/How - to guide us through the stages of inquiry.  He defines a beautiful question as "...an ambitious yet actionable question that can begin to shift the way we perceive or think about something - and that might serve as a catalyst to bring about change" (2014, p. 8).

Berger explores school's dampening effect on productive inquiry.  Fortunately, a solution is at hand, if only educators will take full advantage of the methodology.  Wiggins and McTighe used research about expert understanding to develop a revolutionary approach to unit design.  Understanding by Design starts with the Big Ideas that distinguish expert understanding from a mere accumulation of factoids.  They describe the Enduring Understandings that are necessary to grasp those Big Ideas.  But perhaps most importantly, they describe Essential Questions that serve as "hooks" to engage student interest and provide entry paths into the Big Ideas (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005).

A serious and sustained application of the principles of Understanding by Design could go a long way in closing the gap that Berger has exposed.

Let's follow Berger's lead for a moment.  Why do arts educators - especially arts educators in a PLC - care about this issue?

Arts educators can feel comfortable developing a questioning environment because we work in a discipline where there is usually more than one "right answer" - if indeed one exists. Arts educators in a PLC know our work is driven by questioning - specifically the four questions of the PLC process:

1. What knowledge, skills, and dispositions do our students need to have?
2. How do we know if they have acquired them?
3. What do we do if they have not acquired them?
4. What do we do if they have already acquired them?

One of the skills and dispositions that our students need to have is questioning.  Arts educators can include that in our curriculum.  We can teach for it, we can assess for it, and we can support students who fall short of our expectations.

What if arts educators used questioning to drive learning?

How can we do that?

The answers are the keys to the kingdom.

References

Berger, W. (2014). A more beautiful question: The power of inquiry to spark breakthrough ideas. New York, NY: Bloomsbury

Wiggins, G., and McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA:  ASCD

An Arts Education Hippocratic Oath - Do No Harm!

This is the final post in a series about lessons to be learned from innovation expert Teresa Amabile.

In Growing Up Creative, bestselling Harvard professor Teresa Amabile has a chapter called "How to Destroy a Child's Creativity."  Arts educators should heed these suggestions in the same way that doctors pledge to do no harm.

Amabile cites the following problems as creativity killers:

1. Teacher attitudes:  controlling teachers or teachers with low expectations 
2. Rote learning
3. Fear of failure
4. Conformity pressure
5. "The system" (1989, pp. 87-89)

"The system" refers to the inverse relationship between years in school and creative self-concept.  Many speakers and writers have discussed schooling's apparent negative effect on creativity.  The most popular of these speakers is currently Sir Ken Robinson - his TED talk on the subject is the most viewed video on the TED website (http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity).

While there is no doubt that the fine arts require that specific knowledge, skills, and dispositions need to be mastered, the timing and nature of critical feedback is important. Arts educators must walk a fine line between guiding students and killing creativity.  To make things more challenging, this line is always moving.  Every student has a different line, and even that line may change from day to day based on the student's emotional state.

Professional Learning Communities can play a critical role in helping teachers find this line. Collaboration helps us in at least two critical areas:  it gives us a bigger back of pedagogical tricks, and it helps us know our students better.

Arts educators, let's work together to follow an Artistic Hippocratic Oath.  Let's learn from each other so that we never destroy creativity!

References

Amabile, T. (1989). Growing up creative: Nurturing a lifetime of creativity. New York: Crown Publishers

An Encore with Ed Catmull and Pixar-Unleashing Creativity

Ed Catmull, president of Disney Animation and Pixar, has written a new creativity book that is lighting a fire.

I have nothing to add to Tavis Smiley's wonderful interview with Dr. Catmull, but I would like to highlight a phrase that Catmull uses near the end:  "In spite of the words we use..."

Catmull touches on something here - we give lip service to the idea of making it safe for risk and failure, but most of us fail to live it.  We need to live our words.

Give yourself the gift of fourteen minutes of interview time.  You, your students, and the fine arts profession will be the better for it.

http://www.pixarpost.com/2014/05/ed-catmulls-pbs-interview-with-tavis.html

References:

Catmull, E. and Wallace, A. (2014). Creativity, inc.: Overcoming the unseen forces that stand in the way of true inspiration. New York, NY: Random House.

Motivation! - Creativity Lessons with Teresa Amabile, Part 3

Creativity and innovation expert Teresa Amabile has much to offer Fine Arts Professional Learning Communities.  In Growing up Creative, she describes creativity as a fine soup. Domain skills are the stock, creative thinking and working skills are the seasonings, and intrinsic motivation is the fire (1989, p. 46).  Dr. Amabile understands that motivation is both essential and undervalued, so she devotes an entire chapter to this element of creativity.

Amabile contends that "people will be most creative when they feel motivate primarily by the interest, enjoyment, satisfaction, and challenge of the work itself - and not by external pressures" (1989, p. 51).  Intrinsic motivation is personal.  there are no intrinsically interesting activities - there are only activities which might be interesting for a particular person at a particular point in time (1989, p. 54).  Amabile describes the hallmarks of intrinsic motivation as interest, competence, and self-determination.  She goes on to cite several studies in which creativity was enhanced under conditions of intrinsic motivation.  It turns out that extrinsic motivation will usually compel us to take the safest path, the simplest routine, or the proven algorithm.  This does not encourage innovation.  The pressure of extrinsic motivation can also cause stress, or it can cause us to prematurely criticize potential solutions.

Fans of Daniel Pink will find this to be very familiar.  His book Drive describes autonomy, mastery, and purpose as the formula for motivation.  For those not familiar with Pink's work, his TED talk is a great introduction (http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation).

Fine arts educators must be mindful of the balance between content standards and intrinsic motivation.  We must interpret the standards broadly, with the best interests of developing creative students in mind.  We must design activities and assessments with the goal of improving creative behavior.

We must also be wary of the effects of extrinsic motivation.  This is particularly dangerous in the field of music, where large-group competitions have become the measuring stick for success in many parts of the country.  These competitions may develop or promote many fine qualities in our students, but we need to be clear-eyed about the fact that individual creative thinking is probably not one of them.

How does collaboration play a part in all of this?  We can hold each other accountable to make sure we design assessments and activities that maximize intrinsic motivation. Sometimes we don't know what we don't know, and it takes an open and honest team to keep us on the path to creativity.

Let's band together to make every schoolhouse a more creative place!

References
Amabile, T. (1989). Growing up creative: Nurturing a lifetime of creativity. New York, NY: Crown Publishers.

Pink, D. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.

Creativity Lessons with Teresa Amabile, Part 2

Best-selling author Teresa Amabile describes three major ingredients for creativity:  domain skills, creative thinking and working skills, and intrinsic motivation.  Each of these is essential in order to produce original ideas or products that have value.

In today's standards-driven educational environment, fine arts educators can get caught up in teaching content to the detriment of teaching process.  This can be harmful to the development of creativity.  Amabile writes "There are some special working styles, thinking styles, and personality traits that enable people to use their domain skills in new ways" (1989, p. 46).  She suggests that originality is improved when one consciously sets out to do something out of the ordinary.

In addition to a conscious effort to develop an original idea, a respectful attitude of craftsmanship is helpful.  Amabile asserts that this working style is marked by:

1. a dedication to doing the work well
2. an ability to concentrate effort and attention for long periods of time
3. an ability to abandon unproductive ideas and temporarily put aside stubborn problems
4. a persistence in the face of difficulty
5. a willingness to work hard (1989, p. 47).

Thinking styles are also important.  Amabile observes that many creative persons have several of the following thinking styles:

1. breaking set patterns of thinking
2. understanding complexities
3. keeping options open
4. suspending judgment
5. thinking broadly 
6. remembering accurately
7. breaking out of scripted habits of acting
8. perceiving freshly
9. using tricks to help think of new ideas (1989, pp. 48-49).

These process-oriented goals are more subtle than content standards.  They are harder to measure, and therefore, are harder to demonstrate to an evaluating administrator.  

That doesn't make them less essential.  

A fine arts Professional Learning Community could function as a support network to help educators keep these processes on their teaching radar.  PLC work sessions could start with questions about how you supported creativity this week.  Collaboration can help us stay on track the same way that a workout buddy can hold us accountable for our physical fitness goals.

Creativity is the nexus between the core of our domain and the needs of society at large.  Let's keep these creative processes at the forefront of our curricula.  Let's think carefully about how we will know if students are learning these skills and dispositions (PLC Question #2).  Let's collaborate to find solutions when students don't learn these essential skills and dispositions (PLC Question #3).  

Finally, let's collaborate to support each other and advocate for our discipline.  Society is desperate for creative work, and we are the resident experts in every schoolhouse in the country.  Be proud, and be important!

References
Amabile, T. (1989). Growing up creative: Nurturing a lifetime of creativity. New York, NY: Crown Publishers

Creativity Lessons with Teresa Amabile, Part 1

Teresa Amabile is currently a professor at the Harvard Business School, where her research includes individual productivity, team creativity, and organizational innovation.  Her book The Progress Principle is an Amazon top 100 seller in both Organizational Learning and Creativity.  She has numerous publications on creativity, including Creativity in Context and Growing up Creative.  Her research yields practical recommendations for arts educators.

In Growing up Creative, Dr. Amabile describes three ingredients for creativity:  skill in the domain, creative working and thinking skills, and intrinsic motivation.  These ingredients correspond closely to Professional Learning Community Question #1:  What knowledge, skills, and dispositions do our students need to have?

Amabile correctly points out that we sometimes overlook domain skill, because we take it as given.  However, it is the prime requisite for creativity.  One cannot be creative in a domain in which one has no knowledge or skill.  Einstein's remarkable creativity in physics and his average skill on violin do not imply any particular advantage as a dancer.

Arts educators are sometimes hesitant to prescribe specific knowledge and skills on the basis that prescription inhibits creativity.  In fact, the opposite is true.  We must not shy away from the fact that we must provide foundational training.  We must decide on the particular mix of knowledge and skills that students must have, and we must collaborate so that students receive those foundational skills, regardless of who is teaching the course.  Because these skills are foundational, we must have evidence about whether each student has mastered them, and we must pledge extra time and support to students who have not yet attained mastery.

And yes, this means that we assess learning and use that evidence to guide instruction.  Amabile has recommendations for assessment in art, which will be explored in a later segment.

Happy Independence Day!

References

Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press

Amabile, T. (1989). Growing up creative: Nurturing a lifetime of creativity. New York, NY: Crown Publishers

Amabile, T. and Kramer, S. (2011). The progress principle: Using small wins to ignite joy, engagement, and creativity at work. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press

"Secrets of the Creative Brain" and Fine Arts PLCs

Nancy Andreasen's Secrets of the Creative Brain article in The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/06/secrets-of-the-creative-brain/372299/) was widely posted on Twitter this week.  Dr. Andreasen is one of our most respected creativity researchers, with expertise in creative writing, psychology, and neuroscience.

By her own admission, Andreasen studies what she calls Big C creativity - the processes and products of our most distinguished creative geniuses.  This is in contrast to Little C creativity, which might be described as the creativity inherent in all of us.  Andreasen is also unusual in the field in that she writes extensively about the role of mental illness in creativity.  This article delves into that topic, and interested readers can find an even more thorough treatment of the subject in Andreasen's The Creative Brain:  The Science of Genius.

As a fine arts educator, I am skeptical about making a qualitative distinction between Big C and Little C.  I'd like to think that creativity lives on a spectrum, and that Big C geniuses are simply better at creativity than average people.  I am sympathetic to Sir Ken Robinson's contention that creativity is the exclusive province of neither special people (such as geniuses), nor special activities (e.g., the arts).  I'd also like to believe that educators can enhance creativity without bringing on mental illness.

I am concerned that by focusing on genius and insanity as creative necessities, we reinforce the Muse myth.  In The Myths of Creativity:  The Truth About How Innovative Companies and People Generate Great Ideas, David Burkus disabuses us of many traditional notions about creativity, including the divine inspiration myth.  While I am aware that creative geniuses often describe their process as something like an out-of-body experience, I am reminded of the quip that artists are never more creative than when they are writing their autobiographies.

So, what can fine arts educators learn from Andreasen's work?  To be fair, The Creative Brain includes a chapter called "Building Better Brains," and musical study is included in her recommendations.  While Andreasen is focused on Big C, she is also aware that education can improve Little C.  In Secrets of the Creative Brain, Andreasen also asserts that "creative people are better at recognizing relationships, making associations and connections, and seeing things in an original way - seeking things that others cannot see."

Fine arts education can enhance these abilities.  Effective arts instruction develops imagination.  It teaches the elaboration of ideas.  It requires persistent problem solving.  It can focus students on those things that Andreasen finds essential to creativity - relationships, associations, connections, and originality.

By all means, let's study and celebrate our creative geniuses.  But we do our students and our society a great disservice when we paint a picture of creativity that requires muses and mental illness.  We can teach creativity, and we must teach creativity.

References:

Andreasen, N. (2005).  The creative brain: The science of genius. New York, NY:  Plume Books

Andreasen, N. (June 25, 2014). Secrets of the Creative Brain. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/06/secrets-of-the-creative-brain/372299/

Burkus, D. (2013). The myths of creativity: The truth about how innovative companies and people generate great ideas. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Capstone Publishing.