My classmate Bobby Ramsey has created a very interesting blog, Socratic Questions, about “learner-centered” education. Bobby’s work as a tutor and educator has inspired him to explore this topic in greater detail. In his blog preamble, Bobby discusses the educational philosophy of Constructivism where ”…much of the curriculum should involve hands-on learning experiences.” Bobby makes an excellent case for approaches to education that allow children to learn by discovering new things for themselves.
Bobby’s work in this area led me to look further into the philosophy of Constructivism, through which I learned about an outgrowth of the philosophy called Constructionism. The concept here is that people learn when they are actively constructing something outside of themselves, an external product. Call me crazy, but this brings to mind images of biscuit dough and crudely crafted teddy bears. Of course, much of the theory of Constructionism, developed by scientists at MIT, relates to the use of computers in schools. But I wonder if the same theories apply on a more simplistic level, coming into play earlier in development when creative pathways are still forming.
Imagine a young mind puzzling through the complexities of cutting two pieces of fabric into a shape resembling the outline of a bear and then joining those two pieces of fabric together with stitches, right-sides-facing, turning the result inside-out through a small hole left in the stitching, then evenly filling the inverted item until it emerges as a teddy bear. While the act of creating a little stuffed bear may seem insignificant, how might it enhance a young person’s ability to think in abstractions or develop the capacity for creative problem-solving?
In her paper about women’s creative development, posted on the Creativity Centre‘s Web site, Dr. Kathy Goff observes, “Creative thinking and learning involve such abilities as evaluation, redefinition, analysis, divergent production and problem solving abilities.”
Summarizing from Maslow’s Motivation and Personality (1987, 3rd. ed, p. 159), she describes a time when Maslow changed his idea about creativity after observing one woman whom he described as ”uneducated, poor, a full-time housewife and mother who was not creative by traditional standards, yet was a marvelous cook, mother, wife and homemaker. With little money, her home was somehow always beautiful. She was a perfect hostess and her meals were banquets. Her taste in linen, silver, glass and furniture was impeccable. She was original, novel, ingenious, unexpected and inventive in all of these areas.”
“He learned from her and others like her to think that a first-rate soup is more creative than a second-rate painting, and that generally cooking, parenthood and/or making a home can be creative while poetry can be uncreative.” summarized Goff.
She goes on to conclude, “Educational emphasis must be placed on nurturing the creativity of girls and women. According to Sadker and Sadker (1994, p. 14), ‘if the cure for cancer is forming in the mind of one of our daughters, it is less likely to become a reality than if it is forming in the mind of one of our sons. Until this changes, everyone loses.’”
Food for thought.