David,

This is an interesting topic.  There is the idea that the creative 
person goes off into the wild and somehow invents something.  To quote 
Click and Clack, this idea is wacko.

I think there has to be tremendous support for new ideas--books, for 
instance, need a reading public, agents, people interesting in 
publishing, and a guaranteed audience. .

How much $$$$ was poured into science before computers were created and 
developed?

How about solar panels?  They have been around since when...1940's?  
Earlier?

That's it for tonight on competitiveness.  Except--how about Japan?  An 
educational system that has as its main technique rote learning?  Yet, 
I drive a Japanese car.

Andrea

I
On Oct 27, 2007, at 11:17 PM, David J. Rosen wrote:


> Hello Andrea,

>

> On Oct 27, 2007, you wrote:

>

>> Has anybody yet in this conversation defined 1. critical reading

>> and 2. creativity?

>

> Here's more on defining creativity.  To begin  with, it's quite

> unlikely that we will agree on a definition.  There are more than 60

> of them in the psychological literature (Taylor, 1988),  and as far

> as I am aware there is no standardized measurement instrument for

> creativity. Some believe it is inherited; some believe it can be

> taught; some believe it can be nurtured or encouraged. I believe that

> some kinds of creativity can be taught or at least nurtured and that

> it involves a set of mental activities often closely aligned with the

> kind of mental activities we call critical thinking. Most of us would

> agree, I believe, that a key element is originality, but we might

> differ in describing the paths to it. And it may look different in

> different contexts, in the sciences, in the arts, in technology, and

> in the creative problem solving of daily living.

>

> In the context in which I raised the issue of creativity, I was

> thinking of the application of new ideas, what some would refer to as

> innovation or ingenuity. It is this applied creativity that I believe

> Marc Tucker had in mind as something that Americans have historically

> valued and excelled at, that has been an element of American economic

> success, and that may be undervalued or lost now in the education

> systems' rush toward performance on high stakes standardized tests.

>

> Are adult literacy education students  (including basic education,

> secondary education and ESOL) capable of  this kind of creativity? If

> so, should we nurture it? I believe they are and that we should.  In

> many GED programs I have seen, it is not nourished, usually not even

> acknowledged in program goals or objectives.  And I have never seen

> it measured. This indicates to me that, as a field, we do not value

> and support student creativity. I agree with Marc Tucker that, if we

> are interested in Americans' global competitiveness that we should

> value creativity, and of course, there are other good reasons to

> nourish creativity.

>

> What do you think about this?

>

>

> * Taylor, C.W. (1988). "Various approaches to and definitions of

> creativity", in ed. Sternberg, R.J.:  The nature of creativity:

> Contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge University Press.

>

> David J. Rosen

> djrosen at comcast.net

>

>

> -------------------------------

> National Institute for Literacy

> Assessment mailing list

> Assessment at nifl.gov

> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to 

> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/assessment

> Email delivered to andreawilder at comcast.net

>