Monday, December 8, 2014

FINAL DRAFT

 I'm often asked to be creative, but I don't think I do creative. Ken Robinson, English educationalist, said 'School kills the creativity.' He gave me an answer why I am not creative. I was born with creativity, but school has killed it. However, admission officers said 'Our college wants creative students. Show us your creativity learned in school.' Confusion starts from here. Ken Robinson said my creativity has been killed by school, but universities say we can develop our creativity in school. Thus, I, also other Korean students who may be confused like me, need an answer for this question 'Is the creativity learned in school or innate but killed in school?' It is why I write an essay about this thesis; Creativity can be learned in school. So, don't worry dear Korean students, we can develop creativity in school and go to university we want. Our creativity, the process of thinking unique and brilliant which can create value, won't be killed but will develop in school.

 Creativity is a familiar concept but easily mistaken concept for everyone. Creativity is the process of thinking unique and brilliant which can create value, and must include relevance and novelty. It is what everyone knows. But creativity must be related to the problem solving. It might be confused to understand the exact concept with a sentence. Thus I'd like to cite a paragraph from the article written by Stefan Mumaw, the author of Creative boot camp to make sure you define creativity exactly.
Creativity cannot be present without a problem to solve. When an artist paints a beautiful painting, they are being artistic. When they paint a beautiful painting while solving even the smallest of problems (perhaps the desire for photorealism, or the restriction of only using palette knives, or limiting the number of paints used), they are being artistic and creative. It is the problem that defines creativity, not the art.        
 Before considering whether the creativity is learned in school or not, we should confirm that creativity can be learned. It's absurd to say that creativity cannot be learned, even though it's innate. As I mentioned above, creativity is the process of solving the problem and must include relevant and novelty. Then the question 'the creativity is innate or learned' is meant 'Can you learn to solve problems with relevance and novelty?' Of course some might have talent for solving problems with relevance and novelty. But it's clear that we can learn to do so, solving problems with the creative solution.
If you are presented problems consistently and you choose to solve those problems with relevance and novelty, you can improve creatively.(Stefan Mumaw)
 It's clear that we're facing problems every day; thus we already have an environment for developing creativity. Thus, what we need is an attitude for greeting problems and choosing creative way for solution.

  Then, let's think about the relationship between education and creativity. Nobody would not refute that education develope creativity even it's innate. However, many people have believed that school is the place where the creativity is slaughtered, even the school carries out education. Thus, now, it's time to throw away that misconception and light the school as a place of developing creativity and know how we can achieve so.

 You can jumpstart your Innovation Engine by building your base of knowledge, which will ultimately serve as the toolbox for your imagination. You can also build habitats — or environments — that foster creativity. This involves crafting spaces that are conducive to creative problem solving, and instituting rules, rewards and incentives that reinforce creative behavior. And, most important, you can cultivate an attitude that problems are opportunities for a creative solution. With that mindset, you are willing to push through roadblocks and obvious answers to come up with truly creative ideas. (Tina Seelig)

 The paragraph, cited from sayings of Tina Seelig who is a renowned educationalist writing inGenius, shows us 3 requirements (or ways) for developing creativity; Building base of knowledges, building habits and environments, and cultivating attitudes. I'd like to focus on the first sentence. That sentence means knowledge is a basic requirement for creativity. Thus we could strengthen the basis for creativity by acquiring knowledges. Here's an another expert's opinion emphasizing the importance of understanding subjects learned in school for out-of-box thinking.
 No one in creativity research argues that children should give free rein to their imagination at the cost of understanding a subject. After all, you can’t think outside the box until you fully understand what’s inside the box. (Gerald Puccio)
 'Understanding what's inside the box' means gaining knowledges. I think school is the most appropriate place for gaining knowledge, because school is where we persue learning. Thus, in other words, we can lay groundwork for creativity in school. Of course, some might argue that we can do so by reading books or surfing the internet. But it's true that a school is the most effective way for doing so.

 After strengthening the basis for creativity, what we have to do is developing creativity in practice. Then , however , you would meet the difficulty in answering the question, 'How can you develop your creativity?' The abstract answer is 'practice' But we're eager to have more specific answer. Here's a more specific answer

Puccio teaches his students that creativity comes in four stages – clarifying, ideating, developing and implementing. Clarifying is ensuring you’re asking the right question; ideating is about exploring as many solutions as possible; developing and implementing are making sure the idea is practical and convincing to others. (Gerald Puccio)
  Now, we have specific answers. But it seems hard to carry those out by ourselves. Because, at first, we couldn't know whether our question is right or wrong , and whether our idea is practical and convincing or not. Also “Creativity is not a licence to be bizarre(Gerald Puccio)” It means just persuing unique ideas is not a creative thing. We should make a thought unique but also valuable, and relevant; thus we need a person to help us take a right step for creativity and not cross the line between being bizarre and creative. I think 'Teachers in School' can play the best role in helping us be creative. There might be another way such as hiring tutors, but it's not a fair way due to the needs of money. The poor can not hire tutors. Thus, teacher in a school is perfect for developing creativity. Of course some might worry that due to today's curriculum for entering universities teachers couldn't help their students to enhance creativity. But there are methods for teachers to keep a balance on fostering creativity and giving a lecture for entering universities.

 For example, in my school, an English teacher give students a question related to the topic of the text which will be on the exam. Then students do researches to answer the questuion and present what they researched and found as an answer in front of the classs. By that way, students can develop creativity because this process includes all the requirements for developing creativity; clarifying, ideating, developing and implementing. Also, they get good grade on the exam because they could understand the text better by doing a research related to the text than other way of learning.

  As we see above, we can lay groundwork for creativity and develop creativity with helps of teachers in school. Thus considering school as a slaughterhouse of creativity is the concept we should throw out. School is certainly a place where creativity is learned.
 

 Thanks to Ken Robinson's awesome speech on TED, How school kills creativity, I'm working on this essay. But It's true that his lecture conveys opposite arguments from my position, creativity is learned in school. His main point is that school does not allow students to make mistakes, and ignore the subjects other than the subjects done by brain. Also, I'd like to refute other's idea; creativity is certainly an innate thing, thus no one can make it develop. I would like to start by refuting an opinion; creativity is certainly an innate thing and then refute Ken's opinions

 Firstly, some say that creativity is certainly an innate thing, thus no one even school could not develop it. This insist is totally oppose to my opinion, because it denies that creativity can be learned. According to 'Creativity as an innate part' written by Judy Croome, the author said creativity in arts and litteratures can not be learned. It seems compelling, because we see many who have talents in certain part everyday. But it's not true. Even if we don't have innate creativity; talents in arts, we can develop it with our effort. Malcom Gladwell, a writer of the book named 'Outlier', said we can be the best in any field, if we put Ten-Thousand-Hour in that field. For example, in fields of arts, if we put ten-thousand-hour, we can be a famous painter. I think it means efforts can defeat talents; innate creativity. Because there're many talented people in field of arts, but as someone made an effort, he or she can be better than the talented. Thus, saying creativity can not be learned sounds absurd.

 In addition, whether allowing students to make mistakes or not depends on teacher not school, or education system of Korea. According to the article, 30 Ways To Promote Creativity in Your Classroom, it suggests teachers to allow their room for mistakes. It means teacher is the person in charge for allowing students to make mistakes. Also, from my personal experience, even in the same school, some teachers are generous for and even welcome mistakes, but some teachers are rigorous for mistakes, making students stand-up when they make mistakes. Thus, insisting school doesn't accept mistakes sounds absurd. If there's a problem on whether accepting mistakes or not, teachers are responsible for that, not schools. It is not the fault of schools. Thus teacher should be changed. They should admit mistakes of students. 

 Also, he said school always have priority on math, English, Korean, Science or Social studies. Thus, children who are not interested in those are considered as troublemakers, cannot have an opportunity to show their competence in other fields, and suppressed to not do what they are interested in. However, nowadays, schools in Korea help students to find their interest among all fields by allowing them to spend one year or one semester without studying for exam in middle school. I'll use an example of fictional girl named Jisu. Jisu could find her interests in dance through Korean transition year by attending dance and others course. After she find her interests in dancing, she can enter special-purpose high school such as Seoul performing arts high school. Also, for students who are interested in brainy-subjects, school is certainly the best place to develop their creativity. Thus, it's absurd to say that Korean school kill students' creativity.
 In part, school in Korea seemed to kill creativity of  students. In the past, I do think that there was no creativity in a classroom and no teachers are willing to cultivate students' creativity, because their goal was only making students entering good university. However, time passes. Nowadays, Korean education tries to make a system for supporting environments for creativity. Teachers accept mistakes, ask questions and so on for teaching creativity to their students. Thus,  if students are willing to develop creativity in school, there's no obstacle keeping us from developing creativity. Teachers would help us, and what we learn everyday would be the basis for creativity, solving problems in different angle with relevance and novelty. For willing students, school is certainly the best place for learning creativity


REFERNCE

Ned Smith: Who says creativity can't be learned?
(http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2471-creativity-innovation-learned.html)
JOODY CROOME: Creativity as an innate trait
(http://www.judycroome.com/2008/11/what-is-creativity-part-two-creativity.html)
STEFAN MUMAW: Born This Way: Is Creativity Innate or Learned?
(http://www.peachpit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2005380)
KEN ROBINSON: How school kills creativity
(http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity)
MIRIAM CLIFFORD: 30 Ways To Promote Creativity in Your Classroom
(http://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2013/01/10/30-ways-to-promote-creativity-in-your-classroom/)
COLIN BARRAS: Can you learn to be creative?
(http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140314-learn-to-be-creative)


Sunday, December 7, 2014

PEER REVIEW FOR 민지

Grade
According to the rubric above, what grade would you give this essay? Why?
5점. 에세이 형식에 맞고 흥미로운 주제 괜찮다

How does this essay need to improve to get a better grade?
어법적 요소와 의견 강화

Thesis
What is the thesis?

Fashion is important


Is the thesis clear and debatable?


If you (The reviewer) wrote this essay, how would you have written the thesis?
PROS

Any other thoughts?
없다


Classical Argument
Can you easily identify the 5 parts of the classical argument? If no, what parts are missing?


Does the introduction catch your attention? Does it comfortably lead to the thesis? 
초입부터 뭔가 너무 확 깊이 들어간다는 느낌? 완급조절이 있다면 좋을 것 같음. 그외에는 괜찮음

Does the narration give all the necessary background information to understand the topic?


Does the confirmation adequately support the thesis?


Does the refutation and concession address a realistic counterpoint? Does it adequately dispute the counterpoint, or respond in a reasonable manner?


Does the conclusion summarize the article and address the larger significance of the thesis? 


What suggestions do you have for improving the classical argument structure?
완급조절

Persuasion
When you started reading the essay, did you agree or disagree with the thesis? 
동의하지 않음

When you finished the essay, did you agree or disagree with the thesis?
동의
If your mind changed, why? What parts of the essay were persuasive?
논리가 괜찮은 듯 전체적으로

How could the author enhance the persuasive parts of their essay?
어법요소 체크

Research
Is the author using research effectively? 


Is the research from appropriate sources?



Are the sources obvious?


Are the pieces of evidence relevant to the thesis or essay?
ㅔ네

Are there any parts of the essay that need evidence to support the claims?

PEER REVIEW FOR 태보

Grade
According to the rubric above, what grade would you give this essay? Why?
4점, 흥미로운 주제

How does this essay need to improve to get a better grade?
글을 좀더 강화했으면 좋겠다는 생각이 든다.
Thesis
What is the thesis?
Advertising has good effects than harm to our society.

Is the thesis clear and debatable?


If you (The reviewer) wrote this essay, how would you have written the thesis?
con의 입장


Any other thoughts?
신선한 주제는 아니지만 글 내용이 기대된다.


Classical Argument
Can you easily identify the 5 parts of the classical argument? If no, what parts are missing?


Does the introduction catch your attention? Does it comfortably lead to the thesis? 


Does the narration give all the necessary background information to understand the topic?


Does the confirmation adequately support the thesis?


Does the refutation and concession address a realistic counterpoint? Does it adequately dispute the counterpoint, or respond in a reasonable manner?


Does the conclusion summarize the article and address the larger significance of the thesis? 


What suggestions do you have for improving the classical argument structure?
좀더 내용 풍부하게해줬으면 좋겠지만, 이과니까 정시 파이팅 ㅋㅋ

Persuasion
When you started reading the essay, did you agree or disagree with the thesis? 
동의

When you finished the essay, did you agree or disagree with the thesis?
동의

If your mind changed, why? What parts of the essay were persuasive?


How could the author enhance the persuasive parts of their essay?
내용을 좀더 풍부하게!

Research
Is the author using research effectively? 


Is the research from appropriate sources?



Are the sources obvious?


Are the pieces of evidence relevant to the thesis or essay?
ㅔ네

Are there any parts of the essay that need evidence to support the claims?
.........................

Sunday, November 16, 2014

SECOND DRAFT

  Are you a creative person? What a puzzling question it is! For answering to this puzzling thing, for me, maybe I'm not such a creative person. Ken Robinson, English educationalist, said 'School kills the creativity.' Then I said 'Yeah, school kills the creativity, then I'm born with creativity but now I don't have it due to schools.It's not fault not to be creative.' However, admission officers said 'Our college wants creative students. Show us your creativity learned in school.' Then I'm confused, 'What? Creative students? I lost my creativity during 12 years in school according to Ken Robinson! Who is right? Ken Robinson or Univerity?' Thus, we, Korean students, need an answer for this question 'Is the creativity learned in school or innate but killed in school?' It is why I write an essay about this thesis; Creativity can be learned in school. So, don't worry dear Korean students, we can grow creativity in school and go to university we want. Our creativity, the process of thinking unique and brilliant which can create value, won't be killed but will grow in school.

 Creativity is a familiar concept but easily mistaken concept for everyone. Creativity is the process of thinking unique and brilliant which can create value, and must include relevance and novelty. It is what everyone knows. But did you know that creativity must be related to the problem solving? It might be confused to understand the exact concept with a sentence. Thus I'd like to cite a paragraph from the article written by Stefan Mumaw, the author of Creative boot camp to make sure you define creativity exactly.
Creativity cannot be present without a problem to solve. When an artist paints a beautiful painting, they are being artistic. When they paint a beautiful painting while solving even the smallest of problems (perhaps the desire for photorealism, or the restriction of only using palette knives, or limiting the number of paints used), they are being artistic and creative. It is the problem that defines creativity, not the art.        
 Before considering whether the creativity is learned in school or not, we should confirm that creativity can be learned. It's absurd to say that creativity cannot be learned, even though it's innate. As I mentioned above, creativity is the process of solving the problem and must include relevant and novelty. Then the question 'the creativity is innate or learned' is meant 'Can you learn to solve problems with relevance and novelty?' Of course some might have talent for solving problems with relevance and novelty. But it's clear that we can learn to do so, solving problems with the creative solution.
If you are presented problems consistently and you choose to solve those problems with relevance and novelty, you can improve creatively.(Stefan Mumaw)
 It's clear that we're facing problems every day; thus we already have an environment for developing creativity. Thus, what we need is an attitude for greeting problems and choosing creative way for solution.

  Then, let's think about the relationship between education and creativity. Nobody would not refute that education develope creativity even it's innate. However, many people have believed that school is the place where the creativity is slaughtered, even the school carries out education. Thus, now, it's time to throw away that misconception and light the school as a place of growing creativity and know how we can achieve so.

 You can jumpstart your Innovation Engine by building your base of knowledge, which will ultimately serve as the toolbox for your imagination. You can also build habitats — or environments — that foster creativity. This involves crafting spaces that are conducive to creative problem solving, and instituting rules, rewards and incentives that reinforce creative behavior. And, most important, you can cultivate an attitude that problems are opportunities for a creative solution. With that mindset, you are willing to push through roadblocks and obvious answers to come up with truly creative ideas. (Tina Seelig)

 The paragraph, cited from sayings of Tina Seelig who is a renowned educationalist writing inGenius, shows us 3 requirements (or ways) for growing creativity; Building base of knowledges, building habits and environments, and cultivating attitudes. I'd like to focus on the first sentence. That sentence means knowledge is a basic requirement for creativity. Thus we could strengthen the basis for creativity by acquiring knowledges. Here's an another expert's opinion emphasizing the importance of understanding subjects learned in school for out-of-box thinking.
 No one in creativity research argues that children should give free rein to their imagination at the cost of understanding a subject. After all, you can’t think outside the box until you fully understand what’s inside the box. (Gerald Puccio)
  Then I'll ask you a question. Where can we gain knowledges and understand subjects? The answer must be 'schools'. School is where we can gain knowledges and understand subjects. Thus, in other words, we can lay groundwork for creativity in school. Of course, some might argue that we can do so by reading books or surfing the internet. But it's true that a school is the most effective way for doing so.

 After strengthening the basis for creativity, what we have to do is developing creativity in practice. Then , however , you would meet the difficulty in answering the question, 'How can you develop your creativity?' The abstract answer is 'practice' But we're eager to have more specific answer. Here's a more specific answer

Puccio teaches his students that creativity comes in four stages – clarifying, ideating, developing and implementing. Clarifying is ensuring you’re asking the right question; ideating is about exploring as many solutions as possible; developing and implementing are making sure the idea is practical and convincing to others. (Gerald Puccio)
  Now, we have specific answers. But it seems hard to carry those out by ourselves. Because, at first, we couldn't know whether our question is right or wrong , and whether our idea is practical and convincing or not. Also “Creativity is not a licence to be bizarre(Gerald Puccio)” It means just persuing unique ideas is not a creative thing. We should make a thought unique but also valuable, and relevant; thus we need a person to help us take a right step for creativity and not cross the line between being bizarre and creative. Then who can help us ? 'Teachers in School' can help us. There might be another way such as hiring tutors, but it's not a fair way due to the needs of money. The poor can have tutors. Thus, teacher in a school is perfect for growing creativity. Of course some might worry that due to today's curriculum for entering universities teachers couldn't help their students to enhance creativity. But there are methods for teachers to keep a balance on fostering creativity and giving a lecture for entering universities.

 For example, in my school, an English teacher give students a question related to the topic of the text which will be on the exam. Then students do researches to answer the questuion and present what they researched and found as an answer in front of the classs. By that way, students can grow creativity because this process includes all the requirements for developing creativity; clarifying, ideating, developing and implementing. Also, they get good grade on the exam because they could understand the text better by doing a research related to the text than other way of learning.

  As we see above, we can lay groundwork for creativity and grow creativity with helps of teachers in school. Thus considering school as a slaughterhouse of creativity is the concept we should throw out. School is certainly a place where creativity is learned.
 

 Thanks to Ken Robinson's awesome speech on TED, How school kills creativity, I'm working on this essay. But It's true that his lecture conveys opposite arguments from my position, creativity is learned in school. His main point is that school does not allow students to make mistakes, and ignore the subjects other than the subjects done by brain. Also, I'd like to refute other's idea; creativity is certainly an innate thing, thus no one can make it develop. I would like to start by refuting an opinion; creativity is certainly an innate thing an then refute Ken's opinions

 Firstly, some say that creativity is certainly an innate thing, thus no one even school could not grow it. This insist is totally oppose to my opinion, because it denies that creativity can not be learned. According to 'Creativity as an innate part' written by Judy Croome, the author said creativity in arts and litteratures can not be learned. It seems compelling, because we see many who have talents in certain part everyday. But it's not true. Even if we don't have innate creativity; talents in arts, we can grow it with our effort. Malcom Gladwell, a writer of the book named 'Outlier', said we can be the best in any field, if we put Ten-Thousand-Hour in that field. For example, in fields of arts, if we put ten-thousand-hour, we can be a famous painter. I think it means efforts can defeat talents; innate creativity. Because there're many talented people in field of arts, but as someone made an effort, he or she can be better than the talented. Thus, saying creativity can not be learned sounds absurd.

 In addition, whether allowing students to make mistakes or not depends on teacher not school, or education system of Korea. According to the article, 30 Ways To Promote Creativity in Your Classroom, it suggests teachers to allow their room for mistakes. It means teacher is the person in charge for allowing students to make mistakes. Also, from my personal experience, even in the same school, some teachers are generous for and even welcome mistakes, but some teachers are rigorous for mistakes, making students stand-up when they make mistakes. Thus, insisting school doesn't accept mistakes sounds absurd. If there's a problem on whether accepting mistakes or not, teachers are responsible for that, not schools. It is not the fault of schools. Thus teacher should be changed. They should admit mistakes of students. 

 Also, he said school always have priority on math, English, Korean, Science or Social studies. Thus, children who are not interested in those are considered as troublemakers, cannot have an opportunity to show their competence in other fields, and suppressed to not do what they are interested in. However, nowadays, schools in Korea help students to find their interest among all fields by allowing them to spend one year or one semester without studying for exam in middle school. I'll use an example of fictional girl named Jisu. Jisu could find her interests in dance through Korean transition year by attending dance and others course. After she find her interests in dancing, she can enter special-purpose high school such as Seoul performing arts high school. Also, for students who are interested in brainy-subjects, school is certainly the best place to grow their creativity. Thus, it's absurd to say that Korean school kill students' creativity.

 In addition, some say that creativity is certainly an innate thing, thus no one even school could not grow it. This insist is totally oppose to my opinion, because it denies that creativity can not be learned. According to 'Creativity as an innate part' written by Judy Croome, the author said creativity in arts and litteratures can not be learned. It seems compelling, because we see many who have talents in certain part everyday. But it's not true. Even if we don't have innate creativity; talents in arts, we can grow it with our effort. Malcom Gladwell, a writer of the book named 'Outlier', said we can be the best in any field, if we put Ten-Thousand-Hour in that field. For example, in fields of arts, if we put ten-thousand-hour, we can be a famous painter. I think it means efforts can defeat talents; innate creativity. Because there're many talented people in field of arts, but as someone made an effort, he or she can be better than the talented. Thus, saying creativity can not be learned sounds absurd.

 In part, school in Korea seems to kill creativity of  students. In the past, I do think that there was no creativity in a classroom and no teachers are willing to cultivate students' creativity, because their goal was only making students entering good university. However, time passes. Nowadays, Korean education tries to make a system for supporting environments for creativity. Teachers accept mistakes, ask questions and so on for teaching creativity to their students. Thus,  if students are willing to grow creativity in school, there's no obstacle keeping us from growing creativity. Teachers would help us, and what we learn everyday would be the basis for creativity, solving problems in different angle with relevance and novelty. For willing students, school is certainly the best place for learning creativity

SELF EVALUATION


1) What score do you think you deserve? Here is the rubric:
2 points - The first draft is thoughtful and a good start to an effective persuasive essay. It demonstrates an understanding of the classical argument.
1 point - The student completes a first draft that demonstrates an understanding of the classical argument
0 points - The first draft is inadequate
I think I should deserve 2 points, because my first draft is well organized and has all the necessary parts. It proves that I understand what the classical argument is.



 2) What did you do well?
I wrote strong and persuasive introduction part. It is a good job, because it means I could grab an attention from readers at start of my essay.

3) What could you have done better?

I think I could have done better at refutation part. I should have refured not only Ken Robinson's idea but also others.

4) Which part of the classical argument did you use the best?

I used narration part the best, because  I clear the meaning of the term, creativity. Also, I explained the relation between education and creativity well.

5) Which part of the classical argument did you use the most poorly?

I think.. the confirmation part is lacked of convincing.

6) What's your strategy to make your second draft better?

Certainly, the grammar!!

Sunday, October 26, 2014

FIRST DRAFT

  Are you a creative person? What a puzzling qustion it is! For answering to this puzzling thing, for me, maybe I'm not such a creative person. Ken Robinson, English educationalist, said 'School kills the creativity'. Then I said 'Yeah, school kills the creativity, then I'm born with creativity but now I don't have it due to schools.It's not fault not to be creative.'  Admission officers said 'Our college wants creative students. Show us your creativity learned in school.' Then I'm confused, 'What? Creative students? I lost my creativity during 12 years in school according to Ken Robinson! Who is right? Ken Robinson or Univerity?' Thus, we, korean students, need an answer for this qustion 'Is the creativity learned in school or innate but killed in school?' It is why I write an essay about this thesis, Creativity can be learned in school. So, don't worry dear Korean students, we can grow creativity in school and go to university we want. Our creativity,the process of thinking unique and brilliant which can create value, won't be killed but will grow in school.

 Creativity is a familiar concept but easily mistaken concept for everyone. Creativity is the process of thinking unique and brilliant which can create value, and must include relevence and novelty. This is what everyone knows. But did you guys know that creativity must be related to problem solving? It might be confused to understand the exact concept with an sentence. Thus I'd like to cite a paragraph from the article written by Stefan Mumaw, the author of Creative boot camp to make sure you define creativity exactly.
Creativity cannot be present without a problem to solve. When an artist paints a beautiful painting, they are being artistic. When they paint a beautiful painting while solving even the smallest of problems (perhaps the desire for photorealism, or the restriction of only using palette knives, or limiting the number of paints used), they are being artistic and creative. It is the problem that defines creativity, not the art.        
 Before considering whether the creativity is learned in school or not, we should confirm that creativity can be learned. It's absurd to say that creativity cannot be learned, eventhough it's innate. As I mentioned above, creativity is the process of solving problem and must include relevent and novelty. Then the question 'the creativity is innate or learned' is meant 'Can you learn to solve problems with relevance and novelty?' Of course some might have talent for solving problems with relevance and novelty. But it's clear that we can learn to do so, solving problems with creative solution for many times.
If you are presented problems consistently and you choose to solve those problems with relevance and novelty, you can improve creatively.(Stefan Mumaw)
It's clear that we're facing problems everyday, thus we already have an environment for developing creativity. Thus what we need is attitude for greeting problems and choosing creative way for solution.

  Then, let's think about the relationship between education and creativity. Nobody wil refute that education develpe creativity even it's innate. However, many people have believed that school is the place where the creativity is slaughted, even the school carries out education. Thus, now, it's time to throw away that misconception and light the school as a place of growing creativity and know how we can achieve so.

 You can jumpstart your Innovation Engine by building your base of knowledge, which will ultimately serve as the toolbox for your imagination. You can also build habitats — or environments — that foster creativity. This involves crafting spaces that are conducive to creative problem solving, and instituting rules, rewards and incentives that reinforce creative behavior. And, most important, you can cultivate an attitude that problems are opportunities for a creative solution. With that mindset, you are willing to push through roadblocks and obvious answers to come up with truly creative ideas. (Tina Seelig)

 The paragraph, citing from sayings of Tina Seelig, renowned educationalist writing inGenius, shows us 3 requirements (or ways) for growing creativity; Building base of knowledges, bulding habits and environments, and cultivating attitudes. I'd like to focus on the first sentence. That sentence means knowledge is the basic requirement for creativity. Thus we could strengthen the basis for creativity by acquiring knowledges. Here's an another expert's opinion emphasizing the importance of inderstanding subjects learned in school for out-of-box thinking.
 No one in creativity research argues that children should give free rein to their imagination at the cost of understanding a subject. After all, you can’t think outside the box until you fully understand what’s inside the box. (gerald Puccio)
Then I'll ask you a question. Where we can gain knowledges and understand subjects? The answer must be 'schools'. Yes, school is where we can gain knowledges and understand subjects. Thus, in other words, we can laying groundwork for creativity in school. Of course some might argue that we can do so by reading books or surfing the internet. But it's true that school is the most effective way for doing so.

 After strengthening the basis for creativity, what we have to do is developing creativity in practice. Then ,but, you gonna meet the difficuty in answering the question, 'How can you develop your creativity?' The abstract answer is 'practice' But we're eager to have more specific answer. Here's an more specific answer

Puccio teaches his students that creativity comes in four stages – clarifying, ideating, developing and implementing. Clarifying is ensuring you’re asking the right question; ideating is about exploring as many solutions as possible; developing and implementing are making sure the idea is practical and convincing to others. (Gerald Puccio)
Now, we have specific answers. But it seems hard to carry those out by ourselves. Because, at start, we couldn't know whether our question is right or wrong , and whether our idea is pratical and convincing or not and also “Creativity is not a licence to be bizarre(Gerald Puccio)”, we need a person to help us to take a right step for creativity and not to crossing the line between bizarre and creative. Then who can help us ? 'Teachers in School' can help us. There might be another way such as hiring tutors, but it's not a fair way due to the needs of money. The poor can have tutors. Thus, teacher in school is perfect for growing creativity. Of course some might worry that due to today's curriculum for entering universities techers couldn't help their students to enhance creativity. But there are methods for teachers to keep balance on fostering creativity and giving a lecture for entering universities.
(http://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2013/01/10/30-ways-to-promote-creativity-in-your-classroom/)

  As we see above, we can lay groundwork for creativity and actually grow creativity with helps of teachers in school. Thus considering school as a slaughterhouse is the concept we should throw out. School is certainly the place where creativity is learned.
 

 Thanks to Ken Robinson's awesome speech on TED,How school kills creativity, I'm writing an essay. But It's true that his lecture conveys opposite arguments from my position, creativity is learned in school. His main points are not allowing students to make mistakes, and ignoring the subjects other than the subjects done by brain.

 Firstable, whether allowing students to make mistakes or not depends on teacher not school, or education system of Korea. According to the article,30 Ways To Promote Creativity in Your Classroom, it suggest teachers to allow their room for mistakes. It means teacher is the person in charge for allowing students to make mistakes. Also, from my personal experience, even in the same school, some teachers are generous for and even welcome mistakes, but some teachers are rigorous for mistakes, making students stand-up when they make mistakes. Thus, insisting school doesn't accept mistakes sounds absurd. If there's a problem on whether accepting mistakes or not, teachers are respnsible for that, not schools.
 Secondly,he said school always have priority on math, English, Korean, Science or Social studies. Thus, children who are not interested in those are considered as troublemakers, cannot have opportunity to show their competence in other fields, and suppressed to not do what they are interested in. However, nowdays, schools in Korea help students to find their interest among all fields by allowing them to spend 1 year or 1 semester without studying for exam in middle school. I'll use an example of fictional girl 'Jisu'. Jisu find her interests in dance through Korean transition year by attending dance and others course. After she find her interests, she can enter special-purpose high school such as Seoul performing arts high school. Also, for students who are intersted in brainy-subjects, school is certainly the best place to grow their creativity. Thus, it's absurd to say that Korean school kill students' creativity.
 In part, school in Korea seems to kill creativity of  students. In the past, I do think that there's no creativity in classroom and no teachers are willing to cultivate students' creativity, because their goal was only making students entering good university. However, time passes. Nowadays, Korean education try to make a system for supporting environments for creativity. Teachers accept mistakes, ask qustions and so on for teaching creativity to their students. Thus,  if students have are willing to grow creativity in school, there's no obstacle keeping us from growing creativity. Teachers gonna help us, and what we learn everyday ganna be the basis for creativity, solving problems in different angle with relevence and novelty. For willing students, school is certainly the best place for learning creativity

CLASSICAL ARGUMENT OUTLINE

1. The introduction, which warms up the audience, establishes goodwill and rapport with the readers, and announces the general theme or thesis of the argument.
I will start by asking questions about creativity with a little bit interesting style of writing. 
2. The narration, which summarizes relevant background material, provides any information the audience needs to know about the environment and circumstances that produce the argument, and set up the stakes-what’s at risk in this question. In academic writing, this often takes the form of a literature review.
I will provide an exact definition of creativity. 
3. The confirmation,which lays out in a logical order (usually strongest to weakest or most obvious to most subtle) the claims that support the thesis, providing evidence for each claim.
I will explain how school grow students' creativity.
4. The refutation and concession, which looks at opposing viewpoints to the writer’s claims, anticipating objections from the audience, and allowing as much of the opposing viewpoints as possible without weakening the thesis.
I will refute Ken Robinson's argument with my research so far and a paper I'm writing.
5. The summation, which provides a strong conclusion, amplifying the force of the argument,  and showing the readers that this solution is the best at meeting the circumstances.
I will close with a summary of my points.

ARTICULATION

1) My argument
I want to argue that creativity is learned in school not killed. I found my argument based on my belif of korean education, insisting creative education.


2) How I found my argument 
My first research question was creativity is innate or learned in school. But in the process of research, I found that creativity is both innate and learned. Thus, I change my focus on education, my intersted field, and changed my thesis as 'Creativity is learned in school not killed.'


3) New research questions 
I have several questions that need to be resolved.
a) How can school help students to grow creativity specifically?
b) The role of teacher is important?
c) What is the thing which can be used to rebut their opinion.


4) Connections to the Harvard Sampler 
This argument is related to the part of 'development' in Human minds in Harvard Sampler. In that part, the author talk about innate and learned. So I think There's a connection between my thesis and Harvard Sampler

Saturday, October 25, 2014

CONCLUSION

Instructions:
  1. Read the conclusion instructions here.
  2. Write your conclusion and all the drafts like this example. 
  3. Don’t delete the old conclusions! Keep a record of them so I and your peers can see your progress.

My conclusion

 In the past, I do think that there's no creativity in classroom and no teachers are willing to cultivate students' creativity, because their goal was only making students entering good university. However, time passes. Nowadays, Korean education try to make a system for supporting environments for creativity. Teachers accept mistakes, ask qustions and so on for teaching creativity to their students. Thus,  if students have are willing to grow creativity in school, there's no obstacle keeping us from growing creativity. Teachers gonna help us, and what we learn everyday ganna be the basis for creativity, solving problems in different angle with relevence and novelty. For willing students, school is certainly the best place for learning creativity

REFUTATION and CONCESSION

Instructions:
1. Answer the following questions.
2. Write your own refutation and concession.

1. What is my thesis?
Creativity is learned in school not killed in Korea.
(I think my counter-argument is a case for Korea. Thus, I'll narrow the thests. I'll correct my written paragraph to be appropriate for my new thesis. SO, don't worry.)

2. What is the opposite position?
School kills creativity

3. What arguments can I anticipate?
a) School doesn't accept mistakes, steps for creativity
b) School cares only subjects with brain and ignores others.

4. How will I counter those arguments?
a) It depends on teacher not school
b) Nowadays, there are efforts to help students find their interest among all fields by allowing them to spend 1 year or 1 semester without sudying for exam

My Refutation and Concession

 Thanks to Ken Robinson's awesome speech on TED,How school kills creativity, I'm writing an essay. But It's true that his lecture conveys opposite arguments from my position, creativity is learned in school. His main points are not allowing students to make mistakes, and ignoring the subjects other than the subjects done by brain.
 Firstable, whether allowing students to make mistakes or not depends on teacher not school, or education system of Korea. According to the article,30 Ways To Promote Creativity in Your Classroom, it suggest teachers to allow their room for mistakes. It means teacher is the person in charge for allowing students to make mistakes. Also, from my personal experience, even in the same school, some teachers are generous for and even welcome mistakes, but some teachers are rigorous for mistakes, making students stand-up when they make mistakes. Thus, insisting school doesn't accept mistakes sounds absurd. If there's a problem on whether accepting mistakes or not, teachers are respnsible for that, not schools.
 Secondly,he said school always have priority on math, English, Korean, Science or Social studies. Thus, children who are not interested in those are considered as troublemakers, cannot have opportunity to show their competence in other fields, and suppressed to not do what they are interested in. However, nowdays, schools in Korea help students to find their interest among all fields by allowing them to spend 1 year or 1 semester without studying for exam in middle school. I'll use an example of fictional girl 'Jisu'. Jisu find her interests in dance through Korean transition year by attending dance and others course. After she find her interests, she can enter special-purpose high school such as Seoul performing arts high school. Also, for students who are intersted in brainy-subjects, school is certainly the best place to grow their creativity. Thus, it's absurd to say that Korean school kill students' creativity.