Roger von Oech, author of A Whack on the Side of the Head, distinguishes between hard and soft thinking. Soft thinking is playful, spontaneous, dreamlike, and less concerned with finding the answer as compared to hard thinking. Soft thinking is a necessary part of creativity. But hard thinking is also part of the process. Creativity may thrive on spontaneity but order and analytical thinking is important to be
To know for the broad range of achievements in today’s modern society, Howard Gardener proposes the “existence of a number of relatively autonomous intellectual capacities”, he calls them as multiple intelligences. They are as follows-Linguistic intelligence, musical intelligence, logical intelligence, visual intelligence, kinesthetic intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence, existential and naturalist. The savant pheonomenon provides a support for the existence of separate intelligenice. A savant is a mentally deficient individual who has a highly developed talent in one area which is rapid calculation, memory, music or art. Eg.
It was Fiedler (1967) who originally observed that leadership does not take place in a vacuum, which led to later research emphasizing that the leader and context reciprocally influence each other (Endler & Magnusson, 1976). When only a single context is the focus of performance the risk of becoming myopic increases. Contemporary leadership models necessarily should include the dynamic nature of contexts. Which includes at least two facets: 1) larger contexts have dynamic sub-contexts, and 2) additional contexts exist. In other words, within a given context there is an internal shifting in the variables and factors that make the context what it is; and there are contexts (sometimes unrelated) that influence other contexts.
The general argument made by Alix Spiegel in his work “Struggle For Smarts? How Eastern And Western Cultures Tackles Learning”, published on November twelfth,2012, is that the east and the west need to adjust the way that they think. In schools, the students in America view struggle as being not smart. Across the world, in places like China and Japan, struggle is viewed as a learning opportunity. Within this work, the author is arguing that we, in America, need to change.
When you think of the word technology, what comes to mind? The average person thinks that technology deals with gadgets or gizmos, however, there is more to the meaning of that word called “Technology”. Technology is scientific knowledge or can be described as products or processes that are used to accomplish various tasks in our daily lives such as learning, communication, creating artifacts and so much more (Ramey, 2013). Another important term we need to understand is creativity. When people think about creativity, they think about expressing themselves like an artist.
One definition that is frequently cited is the one by Hofstede(2001): "the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another." (p.9) He specifies that cultural values are manifested in practices. A similar definition comes from Birnberg
In his book he pinpoints the process of oppression and sources of liberation. According to his viewpoint, the main thing to liberate from oppression is none other than bringing of critical awareness and the creative thinking process in the individual. He insists this can only be possible in a new type of education which make the partnership between the teacher and the student inseparably. Freire starts his book with a prologue which introduces the idea of developing a critical consciousness in the minds of oppressed.ie: students. Furthermore, he introduces the matter of the fear of freedom in the oppressed who are influenced by being flooded in the situation of oppression.
Most of the studies concluded that the most significant characteristic of creative individuals is “an almost aesthetic ability to recognize a good problem in their domain” (R.K. Sawyer, 2006, p. 47).This means that a person chooses a domain that fits his or her predispositions, for e.g., a musician may need to be more extraverted than a visual artist. Intelligence and creativity: the "threshold hypothesis" It has been assumed that intelligence, of an above-average level, represents an important condition for creativity. Guilford (1967) was one of the first to find a proper relationship linking intelligence to creativity. He found a positive linear relationship in the lower to average IQ range (IQ = 120) but no correlation was found at above-average
Summary: Frist of all, I watched a talk about creativity. The topic of the talk is “How schools kill creativity”. In this talk, it is mainly talking about the problem of education systems which causes the decline in creativity of students. The speaker shares his point of view on the extraordinary evidence of human creativity and the idea of something going to happen in the future. In the talk, the speaker said he is interested in education and he thought everyone has an interest in education.
Sir Ken Robinson, the world’s foremost expert in the field of creativity and innovation, has addressed the topic at the 2006 TED Talk conference. His talk was titled ‘Schools kill Creativity’. During this talk he highlighted a few faults in the formal education system the foremost being that ‘Schools kill children’s innate creative talents’ (Unknown, What Sir Ken Got Wrong, 2013). He said that the formal education system’s learning environment isn’t suitable for realising creative ability. It creates instead an environment which gradually annihilates creative intelligence.