There are many people who think that the current educational system is out of date, and doesn't allow people of all abilities to reach their full potential. This is due to the fact that the method of teaching children today has changed from decades ago, they now have many different stimulants in the world that engages them in a way we could never before. An example of this would be video games, Ipad's or cell phones. Ofcom reports an increase in the number of children today that use tablet computers alone, stating that 42% of children in Britain all use them. This raises the question after such gripping and engaging way of entertaining children (including 100's of channels on the television), how do we expect children to not become distracted when they are being told to focus and listen to the teacher using a whiteboard up to 5 hours a day? Especially when the learning involves sitting down and not moving, not being creative with their hands. I'm definitely not disputing that we should involve discipline within our schools, but after discovering the Leonardo Effect, the evidence of a better future for the majority of pupils could be better using this system. The Leonardo effect truly engages the learner, the system requires the learner to be creative and think both inside and outside of the box when they discover a problem, or when they need to gain knowledge. The Leonardo Effect helps children to learn in a way that they would like to learn. For a good example of this learner-based learning, I recently visited a school that has implemented this way of teaching. Firstly, the lessons were mostly taught outside, and I use 'taught' loosely, as most of the learning was done through play. The topic was Geography, and the teacher had begun the session with imaginary play, at first I wasn't sure they would actually learn anything, but the teacher began by explaining to the children that they were going on an imaginary voyage to different countries and were all given a role to play within the session (such as tour guide, driver.) The activity began with two questions; "Where are we going? and how do we get there?" I watched as the teacher then took a back-seat role in the learning as the children began organizing and using their minds to creatively make a giant ship from anything they could find, that could cater for the whole class. One of the children then suggested they use a map to get there, that allowed the teacher to point out various countries on the map, and how far away they were from where they were now. As they chose a country, they had to use their imaginations to watch out for dangerous animals that were found with the corresponding country, and had to think of ways to avoid these dangerous creatures. For the whole of the activity the children visited different countries and were learning without even knowing about it - they did not consider it as "work", rather an engaging play session that they so happened to be learning numeracy, geography, Critical thinking, creativity and other such skills from one play session. For me, that activity was all that was the Leonardo Effect, the children were engaged, thinking and learning - all in a way the children wanted to.
Personally I'm on neither end of the spectrum of Art, or Science. Granted, I enjoy and appreciate various pieces of art and like to understand the meaning behind them, as well as learning various scientific facts about next to anything, but I would have never considered them as even remotely similar. My reasons are due to mostly stereotypical views of the both, as on one end there lies those driven by logic and data, and the other by the artists' feelings or emotions, all placed purposefully on a canvas. But what if I were to consider that the purpose of Art & Science are very similar? The purpose of art is to provoke thoughts, ask questions and reason its answers, yet similarly science does the same, as well as applying knowledge for a use that we could transcribe to others in a thought provoking and open-mindedness method, and as Mae Johnson quoted in the 2002 TEDtalk (seen in the video below), “The arts and sciences are avatars of human creativity and are our attempt as humans to build an understanding of the world around us."
The talk also point out that scientists and artists all use the same level of creativity in their work, and given that they are both two separate ways of expressing information, shouldn't we include and implement ways of teaching the arts as well as science in school today? Not everyone is born to be a thinker, but maybe a doer, and teaching critical thinking/creativity could allow children to express themselves in ways that we didn't think they could.
It is easy to see how Science is creative in the way of asking questions, finding solutions and to have an inquiring mind, but a until a few years ago I wondered how art used the mind in the same way by just using a picture, until I came across a piece named 'Breaking Home Ties'. It was through this picture I was able to understand that one picture can tell a story, and the artist is trying to explain something through this picture, and this wasn't just simply a painting. It's description can be found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_Home_Ties
"Many teachers are still striving to build a shared understanding of what science as inquiry means, and at a more practical level, what it looks like in the classroom." (Keeley, 2008)
Whilst considering that the modern way of teaching children in today's schools is changing, with the implementation of such schemes as the foundation phase, this quote suggests that teachers are still struggling to implement scientific inquiry into their teaching and what it truly means. The scientific method of inquiry is a process which involved specific steps in order to reach a conclusion or solution to a problem. This process is as follows; 1) Identify a problem 2) Ask a question 3) Make a hypothesis 4) Test the hypothesis (involving designing and conducting an experiment) 5) Collect data 6) Analyze the results 7) Draw Conclusions 8) Make Recommendations/solutions
Generally, there is a format that applies to applying this to the classroom in order for the learner to make an investigation into an idea that they have created or elaborated. This format involved 5 steps that the teacher can observe to see if the learner's investigations are on the right track;
1) Learner engages in scientifically oriented questions This generally involves the learner asking a new question relating to a topic or situation; I've personally seen this in the classroom, where a teacher creates a fake (or real) situation that poses numerous questions, such as a plane crash on a desert island, or the investigation of a murder. The learners are able to ask such questions as "How did Mr. X die?"
2) Learner gives priority to evidence in responding to questions
With this step, the learner can gather the evidence within the question and question whether the evidence is valuable or usable.
3) Learner formulates explanations from evidence
Here opinions or facts can be derived from the evidence, and there may be further investigation or links made from different parts of evidence.
4) Learner connects explanations to scientific knowledge
Here, other resources are looked at in the same area and links are made to support their hypothesis, e.g. what has happened in other instances?
5) Learner communicates and justifies explanations
The learner will communicate their findings and conclusions in a verbal/non-verbal manner, they can possible write a book, or talk to the teacher of what they have found, and will detail how they got to that conclusion, explaining in depth their evidence and anything that supported their theory.
Dewey (1910) explains that science should be taught as a process, and this method is regarded as an effective way of providing a way to solve a problem. Learners can always follow these steps when they come across a problem or have a question that needs answering, it can be physically and mentally stimulating and is a great way for the mind to inquire, and develop an essential life skill of problem solving.
There has been much debate over the subject of creativity in education, and whether it diminishes the opportunity to develop/expand imaginations or simply help it. To understand why creativity is important in education, we must understand its usefulness within today's society. As mentioned in my previous post, without creativity we would not know much, or have many of the modern day things that we use every day. Various things such as telephones, laptops, even our clothing or the structure of our houses would be non-existent if they were not thought of by various individuals, our every day lives would be drastically different if humanity was without it, and its importance cannot be stressed enough. The question of its importance in education is therefore answered, as creativity can be nourished and should be nourished in children, an efficient way of developing this imaginative state of mind is to be helped by teaching professionals at a location that stimulates the mind, in other words, school. But does it? The famous TEDtalk by a man named Ken Robinson given in 2006 suggested not, raising points that got people across social media (which was gathering popularity at the time, such as Facebook being created two years prior), there are two main points that Robinson points out; 1) That every person begins with a desire to be creative and make things for themselves, and mainstream schools suppresses this desire. 2) It's importance in the 21st century is growing rapidly in personal, cultural and economic ways. After watching the video you are inclined to agree, Let's first consider a child's daily routine within a school. Firstly, they arrive at a chosen time to the same location for a maximum of 7 years and do mostly the same activity every day. This involves a lesson, another lesson, break, lesson, dinner and finish off with another lesson, all given usually within a classroom (excluding the breaks & dinner). The lessons mostly consist of the teacher giving information to the pupils, and then asking the children to simply repeat what they have learnt, with the possibility of punishment if the answer is incorrect. Granted that these style of lessons are an effective way of teaching what needs to be taught, but this is proof that there is hardly room for stimulating the mind in a creative manner, there is not much imagining or problem solving skills happening in the classroom which raises the question; are we allowing the children to think for themselves or simply being told what to think? In this talk, Robinson mentioned something that struck me as a whole,"If you're not prepared to be wrong, you'll never come up with anything original". This got me thinking about our education system and the way we punish if a child has question wrong, they are sometimes even put on the spot with all of their classmates listening to see if they provide the right answers, this can create an overwhelming fear of trying something new for the child or reaching out in some way, therefore this natural love for simply doing in children is replaced with the thought of "Will I fail?" this can be emphasized by one of John Holt's book of "How Children Fail" (1964)
What exactly is creativity? Is it being able to take something from nothing and making it somehow valuable or useful? Maybe it is the measure of putting your imagination into reality? Duffy (2006) defines creativity as "Connecting the previously
unconnected in ways that are new
and meaningful to the individual concerned". Bernadette Duffy is attempting to explain that creativity is inventiveness, and its worth is determined by its usefulness to the recipient, whether in masses or individual. Another way of defining creativity comes from one of Robert E. Frankens' books named 'Human Motivation' (1982) where it reads "Creativity is defined as the tendency to generate or recognize ideas, alternatives, or possibilities that may be useful in solving problems, communicating with others, and entertaining ourselves and others."suggesting that creativity has a wide range of uses from problem solving, such as Einstein's theory of the connection between mass and energy, or communicating with others such as the invention of the telephone, it could be said that through this interpretation, if we did not have creativity we would not know or have anything. In a current society where innovation and new things are valuable, how do we ensure the continuation of creating useful things? One thing is for certain, we will never live in a perfect world where there aren't many problems, and it is likely that we will always need brilliant minds to keep creating solutions to problems from the core of their own minds. It is then important that we invest in where creativity begins and develop any potential from the beginning. A child's natural state is to be curious and imaginative, as they begin to get older from birth they develop an ability to be playful and imaginative, they begin to creative shapes from dough, role play with friends or even create a new game entirely. It is these sort of abilities that should be nurtured in order to create inquisitive minds such as the likes of Isaac Newton, who questioned the world around them from something simple as an apple falling from a tree, and spontaneously creating the concept of gravity.
It is then easy to suggest that the ability to create something profoundly new from imagination should be nurtured in any way possible, a way of being creative is to also build from an existing idea or concept, Albert Einstein once said "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources", Einstein is simply implying that for one to be creative, they are to have no trace back to their source, meaning that if the idea came from an existing idea, they have used in a completely different way and creating something new from that. It is also important that we look at the importance and relevance of creativity in the 21st century, over the next few posts I'm going to be looking at this, including various aspects of the inquiring mind such as the 'Leonardo effect', various perspectives on creativity, and how it is neglected as well as nurtured.
For a good example of this learner-based learning, I recently visited a school that has implemented this way of teaching. Firstly, the lessons were mostly taught outside, and I use 'taught' loosely, as most of the learning was done through play. The topic was Geography, and the teacher had begun the session with imaginary play, at first I wasn't sure they would actually learn anything, but the teacher began by explaining to the children that they were going on an imaginary voyage to different countries and were all given a role to play within the session (such as tour guide, driver.) The activity began with two questions; "Where are we going? and how do we get there?" I watched as the teacher then took a back-seat role in the learning as the children began organizing and using their minds to creatively make a giant ship from anything they could find, that could cater for the whole class. One of the children then suggested they use a map to get there, that allowed the teacher to point out various countries on the map, and how far away they were from where they were now. As they chose a country, they had to use their imaginations to watch out for dangerous animals that were found with the corresponding country, and had to think of ways to avoid these dangerous creatures. For the whole of the activity the children visited different countries and were learning without even knowing about it - they did not consider it as "work", rather an engaging play session that they so happened to be learning numeracy, geography, Critical thinking, creativity and other such skills from one play session. 
