Year: 2016

Schools want students to be creative, but only on a Thursday afternoon

CreativityPublished onLeave a Comment on Schools want students to be creative, but only on a Thursday afternoon

Right off the bat I just want to say, that this post will likely pose more questions than give you solid answers. In many ways though pursuing those questions on creativity and pondering on what they mean in our schools is a worthy call to action in itself.

Fascinated by anything related to the research on creativity, I stumbled on this post from Fast Company about some of the pointers we can get from science.

Admittedly there is some good stuff there amongst the usual mix of “daydreaming and trying new things is good”. What struck me was the parting shot about the resistance to unconventional ideas and the public reaction to non-conformist concepts.

Some of the best ideas are widely ridiculed before they’re revered.

My radar for this sort of stuff is heightened as I recently wrote about the bias against creative ideas we might hold if we are feeling high levels of uncertainty. Creativity bias as a real thing.

The article elaborated further, but started to stray to a slightly different path to close:

Research suggests that whatever nonconformist tendencies we may have as children are often driven out of us by the rote learning and direct instruction utilized in schools, which may counteract our more exploratory and creative modes of thinking and learning.

We are on different track now. These last comments are about the characteristics of those who are creative — not the ideas themselves. It also, obviously, draws in the impact of how we learn and the environmental influence of school — not the ideas themselves.

A final reference to the resistance to those “creative types” points the finger at teachers: “teachers have been found to display a clear preference for students who show less creativity.”

Which led me to a stream of questions:

  • How strong was the influence of school on how creative we are at school?
  • What long term impact does school have on our levels of creativity?
  • How can teacher education help deepen the understanding around what creativity is and how it might manifest in the classroom?
  • How creative is the teaching profession?
  • What are the ideal conditions in school for creativity to flourish?

The body of research referred to here does indeed reveal that:

One of the most consistent findings in educational research into creativity has been that teachers dislike personality traits associated with creativity. Research has indicated that teachers prefer traits that seem to run counter to creativity, such as conformity and unquestioning acceptance of authority.

The commentary on this sort of research points to the futility of the alternative. Suggesting that if we did have a group of 30 young expressive, creative thinkers it would be some version of chaos.

This (preference for non-creative students) shouldn’t be too surprising: Would you really want a little Picasso in your class? How about a baby Gertrude Stein? Or a teenage Eminem? The point is that the classroom isn’t designed for impulsive expression — that’s called talking out of turn. Instead, it’s all about obeying group dynamics and exerting focused attention. Those are important life skills, of course, but decades of psychological research suggest that such skills have little to do with creativity.

Just to answer the questions posed here: yes, yes and absolutely yes.

For me this all points to the education system and not the individual teacher who has become a product of that system.

Compliance and conformity only gets us so far and they certainly don’t rank highly in environments that encourage creativity and innovation.

I recently re-discovered and re-read this lovely essay on creativity by Issac Asimov, in which he suggests some ideas for creating the conditions for others to generate ideas which I have paraphrased below:

  • Daring cross-connection
  • Free of responsibility
  • Thoroughly relaxed
  • Deep knowledge
  • Discussing something of interest
  • Being by nature unconventional

Take a moment to consider each of these in relation to “school” and places of learning.

We suffer the fallout and collateral damage from too heavy a focus on explicit teaching, direct instruction, conformity and compliance, let’s throw in high stakes assessment whilst we are at it.

That damage is the marginalisation of the conditions for children to be strongly creative little souls and the conditions for innovative teaching.

In what ways might we expand these conditions from the margins? How might we establish a common understanding of the key environmental and cultural conditions for innovation and creativity? In what ways might we learn about creativity and use that to inform our teaching practice?

Change your thinking, change your mindset

Mindset, ThinkingPublished onUpdated on3 Comments on Change your thinking, change your mindset

A maxim that I have been testing, applying and thinking about a great deal over the last few years is that “nothing changes unless mindset changes.” On reflection, admittedly it is a little extreme, however it does present an urgent (and often much needed) provocation regarding the way we are thinking about learning in schools and other organisations.

Einstein has become a veritable one man maxim generator as people mine his missives and printed articles for quotable quotes. His reference (in the image) to the need for changing our thinking, altering the routines and habits of thinking that were present in creating the problem, to perhaps solve it, makes a lot of sense to me.

Thinking Wild and Free

In fact it gives us license. Changing mindset takes time, for many it is a long process of practice change coupled with ongoing coaching and reflection binding it all together. We don’t just wake up in the morning with a new mindset. Those habits and dispositions are baked in. I read today how long it takes to create new learning habits, on average at least two months for new habits to become automatic behaviours.

Thinking routines and activities can be picked up and used more flexibly. Although someone may have a particular mindset or disposition, thinking routines can still be practised and activities used. Rinsed and repeated.

Changing our thinking might just change our mindset.

To underline the importance of mindset or disposition on the work we embark upon and the relationships we have Bill O’Brien, the late CEO of Hanover Insurance pointed out:

The success of an intervention depends on the interior condition of the intervenor.

Perhaps he is referring to the disposition or thinking condition of those present, their mindset. We can have all the plans or ideas we like, but unless the mindset is synchronised, nothing changes, or we are at least limiting our chances of success.

Otto Scharmer refers to the lack of awareness of this interior condition (mindset) as a leadership blindspot. Something to explore further, not simply how reflective we are as leaders, but also how well we know the influence of our own disposition, and those of others around us, on our projects and ideas,

Get Out of the Swamp

Another logical and confronting part of Albert Einstein’s challenge is the conclusion that we know more now than we did when the problem was generated. We need to change our thinking to adapt to this new information. Dr Terry Cutler piqued my interest with a reference to conventional wisdom being the enemy of an innovative culture:

William Blake reminded us – in chilling words – that the person who does not alter their opinion in the face of new knowledge is like a “stagnant pool which breeds reptiles of the mind”

So if times have changed, we need to ask ourselves some key questions:

pablo (3)

I recently asked my newsletter subscribers about their biggest challenges in changing other people’s thinking habits. One of the biggest obstacles was resistance to change, people actively choosing not to engage in new thinking routines, persisting in defence of a particular problem generating mindset.

Let’s not beat around the bush, these ‘reptiles of the mind” are very much part of the problem itself. This touches on some of the intricacies of the work of culture change and relationship centred development. Learning is a complex and wonderful thing and sometimes it is hard to discern how much influence people have on the conditions for learning (+/-).

Don’t Expect A Paradigm Shift

An example, just as a thought experiment, might be that a class of Year 6 children are poorly behaved during lessons with a particular teacher. The behaviour has formed a discernible pattern and seems to be associated with, and in reaction to a highly prescriptive and didactic approach to teaching from the teacher. There is a mindset at play here. The notion of planing creative learning activities, and spending less time talking at the kids is an alien one for the teacher. Something to be guarded against. “Why change?” comes the defensive play. What would you do to help the teacher and the class?

Start with empathy.

  • How much do we understand the mindset of those in this situation?
  • How can we move to a closer appreciation of the truth of this experience for those involved?
  • What situations are similar to this and how might we draw on those experiences to inform our decisions here?

Dig deeper. Complex problems like this one are rarely anything to do with the surface signals. 5 Whys is a great activity to explore to help dig deeper when used in support of other data gathering.

  1. Why are children behaving poorly? They are not engaged in the lessons.
  2. Why are they not engaged in the lessons? They are not doing enough thinking for themselves.
  3. Why are they not thinking for themselves? There is too much teacher talk.
  4. Why is there too much teacher talk? Lessons are imbalanced towards lots of a didactic teaching method and this is poorly differentiated
  5. Why is there this imbalance and poor differentiation? The teacher has been designing learning on their own for a long time and has not had the same chance to work collaboratively with others, and have their work critiqued and reviewed.

A couple of things to share about this scenario. First of all the disposition (of the teacher) is not suddenly going to change, we don’t get out of bed and suddenly all is reversed remember. So maybe we need to defer the paradigm shift expectation for one associated with the way we are thinking about the design of learning. Sure these overlap, but by changing the thinking routine, in this case through more collaborative planning, perhaps the situation will change.

Intentionally Creating Problems

My son pointed out that maybe when you create maths problems it is an exception to what Einstein is saying. This was affirmed by fully grown adults too on Twitter who shared a similar opinion. I wonder if it is something to do with how intentional the genesis of the problem was, along with the level of complexity the problem has.

Complex or wicked problems rarely involve single answers and are the product of a similarly complex, turbulent crucible of conditions. This would be true for coral bleaching as it is for poor collaboration in an organisation. In my book what Albert, let’s call him Albie, is referring to is the level of thinking needed for complex problem solving. Problems that are created in conditions defined by disparate and multiple dispositions pulling in different directions perhaps.

I wonder how much our intentions play a role here as well. We rarely intentionally create problems at work and at home (hopefully) and so it is with a lack of awareness that problem conditions set in. An increased awareness would be a good example of a change in thinking that might lead to a solution. For the teacher example above this may also be true, just increasing awareness of too much teacher talk may help to resolve things (in the short term at least).

Intentionally creating problems suggests a level of awareness of choice, causality and consequence. You might expect this awareness when solving such problems too. So maybe we need different types of thinking when we didn’t intend for the problem to occur.

—

If I return to my original reference, “nothing changes unless mindset changes”, through writing this post it has helped me explore the notion that changing our thinking in aggregate might change our mindset. It has been good to define those key questions for unpacking problem conditions which I hope you find useful.

Escaping old ideas and the bias that erodes your creative culture

Creativity, Innovation, LeadershipPublished onUpdated on1 Comment on Escaping old ideas and the bias that erodes your creative culture

I recently discovered the above quote from John Maynard Keynes, an influential English economist, about the challenge of thinking creatively.

It got a bunch of attention on Twitter and seemed to really resonate with people, as it did with me, so I thought I would spend a little longer considering what he is saying.

The creative process continues to be a passion and fascination of mine. What that process continues to rely upon is a creative culture within an organisation. When strong it is supportive of new ideas, when weak it erodes them.

John Maynard Keynes points us to the challenge of “escaping” old ideas, a direct reference in my opinion to two things. (1) The creative culture those new ideas are born into, (2) the mindset of those attached to existing ideas.

A 2010 study by the University of Pennsylvania points to an underlying negative bias towards creativity when we feel uncertainty. New ideas may often be generated in times of change and when things are in flux, and the sense of uncertainty may actually be getting in the way of being open to new ideas. As Maynard Keynes states escaping old ideas is harder and the bias research sheds some light on this.

Our results show that regardless of how open minded people are, when they feel motivated to reduce uncertainty either because they have an immediate goal of reducing uncertainty, or feel uncertain generally, this may bring negative associations with creativity to mind which result in lower evaluations of a creative idea.

Back to thinking about culture. If there is such a bias, implicit or otherwise, we have to mitigate against this within our schools and organisations. Familiarity with constant change and development is key, creating a new norm. If we can reduce the negative bias by increasing our level of collective comfort when faced with uncertainty we might recognise and encourage more creative thinking.

This makes me think of Dear Mr Judgy Pants, my open letter to those judgemental types who shoot down ideas too soon. Those people, and I know many of us have encountered them, are showing a fear of the wider uncertainty that is in fact forcing us to think creatively in the first place.

I just wanted to let you know that there are thousands of idea headstones carved because of people like you. We mourn those precious little sparks, those little glimpses of something new, different and unexpected. We still think about those ideas and the fleeting moments we had with them.

James L. Adams refers to the “Inability to tolerate ambiguity; overriding desire for order; ‘no appetite for chaos’” as one of a number of emotional blocks to creativity. When it comes to complex development and problem solving the ability to tolerate some chaos is vital.

You must usually wallow in misleading and ill fitting data, hazy and difficult-to-test concepts, opinions, values, and other such untidy quantities.

 The key thing I have been pondering on, since I shared that tweet, is about better understanding the people in our organisations and so better understand the creative culture.

Perhaps if we were to extend the research to create a measure of people’s tolerance of ambiguity <a> and compare this with a measure of their propensity for divergent thinking <b>, we would have an interesting +/-differential <c> that we could explore further.

If we were able to gather individual or collective measures we might be able to better understand the collective creative culture and make plans to support and encourage positive change.

Of course we can easily hypothesise that those individuals who are able to generate new ideas and have a high level of divergent thinking, coupled with a high level of tolerance for ambiguous and uncertain developmental states, may prove to be the most innovative.

Across an organisation these values may be carried by different people at different times and the make up and balance of our teams is something else to consider.

As much as it may feel odd to attempt to measure the artful design of innovative culture, I think there is huge value in exploring the science of it too.

1*QblRRfaaTurDWoEROQ62Vw

Maybe a further thinking matrix or framework might look like this.

I am grateful to have had the provocation from that quote this week to think more deeply about the individual contribution we make to a creative culture. As always, let me know what you think and how you help yourself and others “escape old ideas”. I think that is the next step to consider, what are the practical tools that allow us to escape.

Name Your Perspective

Discussion, Leadership, Learning, ThinkingPublished on1 Comment on Name Your Perspective

If you have spent any time with me in small group development sessions you will likely have heard me talking deliberately about perspective. I am always keen to make explicit what can often be an implied understanding or concept. Trying to name up front and from the outset assumptions we might be making is a handy habit to get into. The same is true about the perspective we might be taking towards a discussion or dialogue.

I think one of the challenges we face is in our ability to zoom in and out in terms of our thinking and when in collaboration or discussion with others.

When I say “zoom in” I mean taking heed of the “Micro” perspective, the daily grind the specific, concrete things that might be happening in the classroom. Paying attention to the “Individual” would also be common with a “Micro” perspective. With this lens we are paying less attention to the larger more abstract goals at play and focusing on the concrete decisions and actions in the classroom. When we zoom in we might be asking “How” or “What” questions.

“Zoom out” to a wide angle lens and we bring into view the “Organisation” level goals and aspirations. They might be much less concrete to allow many people to get on-board, so our perspective is more abstract. We are thinking less about ourselves and the concrete stuff that might get in the way of whole school progress. When we zoom out we ask “Why” questions to get to the drivers of our actions and decisions. We have to be more comfortable dealing in a more abstract currency.

I typically signal the perspective I am taking to help set the expectations about a particular part of a discussion. I think it helps me make explicit my choice of perspective and also allows a group to quickly appreciate the expectations that come with that perspective. Micro = details, Macro = drivers.

“Let’s zoom out for a second and consider the reason why this programme needs to change in this way.”

“If we think about a wider lens for a moment we can see that this decision fits with what we are choosing to do across the school.”

“OK now let’s zoom back into what this means in terms of the day to day. How could we explore this everyday?”

“What about the learners experience of this? Let’s jump back into the classroom for a second and consider how this concept would be evidenced in the classroom.”

In most discussions we might move fluidly between the concrete and the abstract. So perhaps start with why but keep returning to it. By doing so we continue to rationalise our actions or ideas and ensure they are connected to a bigger picture.

Perhaps the challenge is not just zooming out to think in an abstract way or zooming in to consider the concrete actions, but more precisely how effectively, fluidly and quickly we can move between those perspectives. Another layer to this is of course how synchronised our perspective is with others we are with.

By explicitly naming a perspective in dialogue we are forming good mental cues to ourselves and external cues for others to gain a better understanding. I think we can all benefit from solid thinking habits that tether our concrete ideas to the drivers and the broader rationale.

—

If you enjoyed this please sign up to my weekly newsletter here, for more insights about learning, creative culture and feedback. Don’t forget to say hi on Twitter as well, just watch out for the American politician who goes by the same name.

Avoiding Masterchef style feedback

FeedbackPublished onUpdated on2 Comments on Avoiding Masterchef style feedback

Her eyes widened and her mouth fell agape. I suspect the ticking clock suddenly stood still and the taste buds, that had become her all-powerful ally, dried up as fast as an unwatched pan of pasta. Her idea had been derailed.

Wherever I look I see processes of critique and feedback. It is unquestionably an integral process for learners. However, it is also a process that binds and carries the progress of many other professions and creative endeavours, as well as almost everything else in between.

That is why when watching the TV show Masterchef, the amateur cooking competition, the impact of feedback was all too present and obvious.

Masterchef style feedback refers to providing feedback at a point when it is creatively inappropriate as well as emotionally challenging to hear.

Now if you have never seen Masterchef let me share the scenario. The contestant I describe had begun a challenge in which they were in a small group of other contestants but cooking independently. They were given a time limit, like 30 minutes, to cook a particular style of dish or create something unique.

I recognise that the pace of the creative process (generating original ideas for a dish) on show here is very high along with the intensity of the environment, time, expectation and competition. This can be a block to creativity.

In this intensity, the contestants are immediately generating ideas as they hear the challenge ahead of them, even before the basket wielding supermarket sweep for ingredients begins. They are all drawing upon a history of cooking, a long line of experience using the ingredients they have and a range of ideas and principles of cooking that have been tried and tested before.

The action usually commences with everyone rushing off to a pantry filled with a plethora of fresh ingredients and cupboard essentials. The ideas for their dish begin to swirl as they are confronted by the swathe of stock laden shelves in the pantry. There are those that pluck what they need, the decision made and those that are still developing something, waiting for inspiration to strike, lost momentarily in the various types of vinegar on offer.

With baskets crammed the cooks rush to their workbenches and stovetops to begin cooking. Stakes are high (fill in your own pun) as they compete with each other, the clock, their own nerves and the judgement of professional chefs and food critics. Suffice it to say that emotionally the environment is highly charged for those involved.

And then comes the first moment of feedback.

Who knows really how much time has passed due to the editing process for television. However typically a trio of judges saunters across to a contestant to try and learn what dish is being made and observe the progress towards that goal. Comments both positive and negative are typically shared with the contestant at this point. This is a moment when really contestants are implementing their idea for the dish, they have committed to it and are pushing on. Feedback which is anything but affirmation is derailing.

So every now and then you see idea derailment in the eyes of the contestant. The widened eyes of an inner struggle to assimilate the expert advice with their emotional and technical commitment to an idea. “How can I possibly change my dish now?!” The contestant has invested in their idea and fast-tracked to implementing it. They are no longer making major decisions about what to do but are now amongst the intricacies of making it happen. Their mindset is no longer in a divergent state but is now one of convergence towards a more and more fixed goal.

It is this style of feedback which I think we have to seek to avoid. After all the cooking on Masterchef, however much a show for TV is still a microcosm of a creative process. This is similar in so many ways to when we ask the learners in our classes to create something, think high stakes, time, judgement.

To avoid Masterchef feedback or idea derailment we simply have to provide more feedback earlier on in the creative process.

In the case of Masterchef the time in the pantry, as the contestants jostle for ideas, inspiration and ingredients, would have been a good time to speak with people to offer ideas and feedback. Sometimes on a show, you see those stranded in the pantry getting a pep talk from a judge as they share and develop ideas together. That early feedback and dialogue are much more developmental and appropriate than derailing ideas already on their way.

In the classroom, we might build in earlier check-ins with learners as they begin the process of generating ideas for their writing, painting, modelling etc. The longer you leave that early check in the more committed to their ideas students will become and there is a higher chance of idea derailment if you offer critique. Plan for feedback to occur early and frequently to catch our young thinkers whilst their mindset is still divergent and open to ideas.