Recontexting as Creativity

Recontexting as Creativity

By Dr. Steve Gruenert

Associate Professor and Department Chairperson

Department of Educational Leadership

Bayh College of Education

Indiana State University

At what point does the ability to do something well transfer to other activities, unrelated activities to that which we have expertise?

Do accomplished musicians have competencies related to playing music that could inform their abilities to play golf? Could a professional photographer bring those skills to excel at cooking? Does teaching math well or having many successful years as a coach provide support for a person interested in becoming a principal?

A conceptual leap is needed to inform unrelated activities. A level of creativity is needed to make the connection between what we may be very good at and what we aspire to become good at while envisioning our capabilities. Perhaps some people are able to make connections between disparate skills quite easily while others struggle to find the significance of the crossover.

If we were to assume that all people have something they have devoted quality time to; something they believe that puts them above average in performance, then this capacity would have the potential to provide a thread, if not a scaffold, of required mental/physical competence to move forward more quickly toward reaching above average performance in a new area.

The trick is to identify the areas of which we believe we have a high level of mastery and tease out the fundamentals of that activity, while looking for application to other activities.

How does one know if they have above average abilities?

What criteria exist to inform this awareness?

Let’s look at some examples and try to identify any obvious connections:

·      A math teacher who is seeking to become a professional poker player.

·      A construction worker who wants to become a sculptor.

·      A science teacher who wants to become a professional fisherman.

·      A policeman who wants to become a corporate lawyer.

·      An Air Force pilot who wants to race boats.

·      A person who has recently quit smoking, now going on a diet.

·      An actor who wants to become a politician.

Now for the more challenging connections:

·      A CPA who wants to learn to play the piano.

·      A crop farmer who wants to become a classroom teacher.

·      A lawyer who wants to write poetry.

·      A bank executive who wants to become an astronomer.

·      The ability to balance a quadratic formula and the ability to navigate a politically charged argument.

·      An ability to remain calm when faced with deadlines at work, and parachuting.

·      An air traffic controller who builds sailboats.

·      A New York cab driver who wants to grow vegetables in his own garden.

·      A boxer who likes to collect stamps.

·      A businessman who wants to become a principal.

If the obvious connections from the first group were actually obvious and the connections between the pairs in the second group were more difficult, is that an indication of a limitation imposed by one’s intellect or one’s cultural upbringing?

Would those who are experts in the field desired (let’s call them veterans) be better able to find the connections as opposed to those people who know little of the field?

Could the opposite be true also?

Is it possible that the expertise one builds throughout a lifetime actually debilitate one’s capacity to do well in other non-related activities: The better one becomes at leadership, the worse he or she become at driving? Some professions require quick reflexes while others demand a measured approach. Some require logic while others may require creativity. In some aspects, we may be training ourselves not to do well, or to identify with those who do well, in certain fields.

Do school leaders who have been removed from classroom duties tend not to recognize good teaching over time? Perhaps the context of leadership recalibrates our perspective of what good teachers do – and maybe it is inaccurate.

The use of analogies to inform our daily lives occurs quite often without much interruption of thought, as does the use of metaphors when we help others understand something we hope to convey using the simplest of terms. When we explain something complex to others, something we seem to understand (algebra, perspective drawing, the golf swing), we will try to use language they understand. We seek to identify what they already know (prior knowledge) and try to help them make the conceptual leap to the more complex concept.

This is teaching.

Yet, how often do we do this within ourselves?

Is there a point to which we think there are no connections between activities, thus losing out on a potential head start to mastery of something new?

____________________________________________________________________

Dr. Steve Gruenert encourages you to offer your perspectives on his conceptual piece above by commenting on this blog or contacting him at steve.gruenert@indstate.edu.

Bennett on Bennett

-->

Bennett on Bennett

By Dr. Ryan Donlan

Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership

Bayh College of Education

Indiana State University

            I talked with an Indiana Superintendent last Friday after spending two days working with him on content analysis for a new, statewide licensing examination.  As much conversation did this past week, our talk drifted toward the results of this past week’s State Superintendent election in Indiana where a 30+ year elementary teacher unseated arguably the most prominent State Superintendent in the country by more than 130,000 votes.  We agreed to watch the resultant fallout in the press that weekend and beyond.

Tribune-Star writer Mark Bennett offered his perspectives in an article this past Sunday on the unseating of Indiana State Superintendent Tony Bennett (last names a coincidence, I think, but don’t know for sure). In doing so, he mentioned that as Indiana has 62,258 public school teachers, this wasn’t just a teacher-created margin of victory (November 11, 2012, B5). 

Many of my graduate students and faculty colleagues this past week have contended that Superintendent Bennett’s upset is a mandate from “the folks” who are concerned about WHERE the state is heading and WHAT is happening to education.  I agree with most of their analyses, yet see this as more a HOW thing, not only in Indiana, but also across the nation.

Mark Bennett wrote, “Maybe Hoosiers don’t like the concept of for-profit corporations running their public schools, or high-stakes standardized tests, or public-funded private school vouchers.  Or all of the above, all at once”  (Tribune-Star, November 11, 2012, B5).  He might have a point on that part of the WHAT.

However, I’ll bet Hoosiers like the idea that educators should be accountable for their next day’s best work, as well as transparency in performance.  I’ll bet they like that it is now much easier for school leaders to remove incompetent teachers who formerly were entrenched in thicker collective bargaining and tenure protections.  I’ll bet they like that they now have more of a choice in attending a variety of public schools that meet their needs, rather than being limited by their own geographic location and mailing addresses. 

Granted that although many of these newfound realities are a result of legislative and gubernatorial leadership, Dr. Bennett championed them as well, to his credit. 

These WHAT’S, I believe, are not all that bad.

Writer Mark Bennett offered an even better point, prior to his WHAT, on the HOW that has taken place in Indiana. 

He wrote, “ … maybe Hoosiers were glad – even relieved – to hear the woman voters chose to be the next state superintendent suggest that Indiana’s educational change bulldozer find a lower gear.  If the dust never settles, it’s hard to see where you’re going.” 

This was an excellent point for you to highlight, Mark – that the dust, every so often, needs to clear.

For a number of years now as a student and teacher of school reform, I have made a point to distinguish the journey from the destination – the need to focus on the HOW (journey), while we’re focusing on the WHAT (destination).

In closing my Ed. Leadershop election reflections for this week, I’ll share a few leadership lessons that I have learned (some from good teachers; others by just messing things up, myself) that may help put things in perspective on this past week’s unseating of a national figure.

As leaders moving forward with complex initiatives in times of challenge and uncertainty, we must:

1.     Make an attempt to understand those who have differing perspectives than we; then work through openness and mutual respect to find common ground.

2.     Establish relationships and communication with even our most vehement critics with an I’m OK; You’re Ok perspective.

3.     Surround ourselves with followers who are not “Yes men” or “sheep.”

4.     Ensure that those reporting to us are not afraid for their jobs if they find fault with our analyses or initiatives.

5.     Measure twice and cut once before moving forward with something that will be difficult to undo.

6.     Understand that people who are resistant to the changes we present may naturally be worried about being less-than-capable at what we are asking them to do.  Help them.

7.     Refrain from over-measuring people who are moving through natural implementation dips when navigating new challenges, as they will perceive it as “bludgeoning.”

8.     Realize that sometimes in order to go fast, we must go slow.

9.     Change course when prudent and admit that we do not know everything, as others, especially our opponents, teach us new ways of thinking.

10. Look over our shoulders every once in a while to see if anyone is following.

Mark Bennett wrote, “Mike Pence, Mitch Daniels and Indiana legislators should respect the votes of 1,315,026 Hoosiers. That’s how many people voted to change the leadership of K-through-12 education in Indiana” (Tribune Star, November 11, 2012, B1). 

      I wonder if that number would have been quite as high if 1 – 10 above would have been more the rule than the exception in the way state and national leaders have presented themselves in conducting the people’s educational business.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Ryan Donlan is a lifelong learner of leadership and would like to learn from you as well, if you would find time to comment or contact him at (812) 237-8624 or ryan.donlan@indstate.edu.

Cultural Selection as Means for Survival

-->
-->

Cultural Selection as Means for Survival

Dr. Steve Gruenert

Department Chairperson

Department of Educational Leadership

Bayh College of Education

Indiana State University

There are two good reasons to study organizational culture: 1) to understand the sociological processes that occur when a group of people get together for a period of time, in other words, because the researcher is curious, and 2) to understand the dynamics of group behavior so as to control the group, in other words, so a leader can get his followers to behave appropriately.

What I have found interesting as I study this stuff (now in my third decade of doing so) is how cultures change without the purposeful interventions of a leader. Cultures change over time, and it does not take a charismatic leader. Sometimes, it seems, the group will self-reorganize without leadership. Which brings us to my latest wild idea…

Natural selection is a concept that informs evolution.

A simple explanation of the process is as follows: It can be characterized as living organisms maintaining and passing on certain traits that help them adapt and thus survive in their environment. Relating that to the idea of schools:

Do organizations “select”?

Is there a cultural selection that occurs as a group of people adopt certain traits as a means to survive their environment?

Is cultural selection a concept that can inform anything?

Our schools are facing a new environment as the trust of their community comes into doubt and as the state and federal departments of education make new demands. Educators are being forced to defend themselves in the wake of threats to their professionalism. To simply survive these changes, school cultures may sense the need to adjust some things. Cultures are proof that organizations learn, and the ones that survive (perhaps I mean the ones who have survived) may be the ones able to adapt the quickest – which does not assume they are necessarily the best for kids – rather, the new way of doing things may built to accommodate the adults. Some of these cultural selections may not be in the best interest of learning.

Who or what determines the aspects or traits of a particular culture get passed on to the next generation? And when is it time to change? In natural selection, the environment, it would seem, influences what is kept and what is lost. This interaction between environment and organism provides a framework for the interaction between environment and culture. In natural selection the process is not hindered by human egos or biases, and it seems to be quite effective. In schools, cultural selection can be authored by a leader, even with this power; however, it seems as though an invisible process is happening, indiscernibly. The culture never really becomes exactly what the leader hopes for. Although my theory asserts that some cultures change without leadership, some leaders seem to be able to help provide the next generation of leaders/followers a platform from which to behave. They are the keepers of the stories who can influence the cultural selection process.

What to take away from all this? It would seem that cultures will change even if the leader does nothing. This change may be initiated and designed by the changes in the environment. If a threat is looming, then the culture will adapt to that and may go to crisis mode. The leader can help the culture interpret the environment as not a threat, and prevent the crisis mode from freezing improvement efforts.

The state of education in Indiana certainly has an uncertain feeling to it. I wonder how many schools are currently in a crisis mode because the leader did nothing? And if it stays that way for too long, it will feel normal, and people will cling to that type of mentality as a security blanket (or reason to do nothing).

Culture always wins.

_________________________________________________________________

Dr. Steve Gruenert is a leading authority with notable scholarship on the subject of school culture.  Please consider sharing your thoughts on his developing theories and perspectives by writing him at steve.gruenert@indstate.edu.

A Momentary Stay Against Confusion

-->

A Momentary Stay Against Confusion

Dr. Ryan Donlan

Department of Educational Leadership

Bayh College of Education

Indiana State University

I was in good company this past weekend.  Good people, good conversation, good scholarship ... good food as well.

At a remote location ideal for a retreat, a group of Midwestern higher education scholars spent the weekend in a military fort, admittedly, in officers’ homes – sharing, collaborating, teaching, learning, investigating, writing, eating, exercising, and at sunset (sunrise, in a few cases), bunking down for a few hours of shut-eye. 

They worked round-the-clock on meaningful research and scholarship. 

As faculty members, we were on hand to support them -- guiding, cooking, critiquing, challenging, motivating, congratulating, and providing whatever cleaning and errand running was needed. 

Completion of doctoral dissertations, or at minimum, furthering them, was a goal.

Yet, I’m wondering if something else was even more important.

As you might guess, most in attendance left families behind – families who undoubtedly missed their mommies, daddies, siblings, and significant others … families who might not have seen too much of their loved ones the week prior, with the vast responsibilities they hold and the busy lives they lead. 

I admired the number of cell phone calls ending with, “I love you’” and “Sweet dreams” during our late-night writing.

As I am an armchair philosopher deeply interested in the human condition and leadership, I couldn’t help but share this inspirational experience in the Ed. Leadershop this week.

Please consider the following take away’s that were meaningful to me, as I got to know this group.

1.     Our best leaders set lofty goals, those that are first and foremost, intrinsically valuable to them on a deeply personal level.  As one example, many pursue doctoral degrees because doing so is a goal that they value, not because of any promised, professional advancement or economic benefit.  It is simply important to them.

2.  This personal goal setting often accompanies one’s valuing deferred gratification and paying forward to oneself and others. It has a strong ethical and moral framework upon which all other actions are suspended.  I saw these attributes in my colleagues and students.

3.     The vicarious learning that takes place, in witness of people such as those mentioned in 1 and 2 above, does well to uplift others; it inspires transformational performance.

4.    Leaving one’s family and professional roles behind for a time should not be seen so much as moving AWAY from the responsibilities and lived experiences one has.  Instead, it should be seen as one’s moving closer into oneself (from Kahler’s, 2008, The Process Therapy Model).

5.  In doing so, those at the retreat provided themselves a “momentary stay against confusion,” a phrase I borrow from Robert Frost (1939, The Figure a Poem Makes).  This “stay” better allowed them to think, to process, to reflect, and then to lead when they emerged at work this week to address the personal and professional responsibilities they assume by way of leadership.

I was in good company this past weekend.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Ryan Donlan wants to better understand the ways in which people self-actualize and is intrigued by your ideas as they pertain to leadership and education.  Please feel free to comment on his points, observations, and assertions above or contact him at (812) 237-8624 or ryan.donlan@indstate.edu.

The Secret Spice

-->

The Secret Spice

Dr. Ryan Donlan

Department of Educational Leadership

Bayh College of Education

Indiana State University

            Over the past 20 years, I have been looking for the Secret Spice that fosters heightened academic achievement in students.

I have shopped in many places, launching my career with Instructional Theory Into Practice (ITIP), then Teacher Expectations & Student Achievement (TESA).  A number of years later, I utilized the International Center for Leadership in Education’s Quadrant D Instruction, as well as the 8-Step Process Integrated Systems Model.  I even familiarized myself with Marzano’s Effective Instructional Strategies.  Thinking back, I probably have studied around 10 to 20 other models; not one of them, on balance, is bad for kids.

            What I have not yet found is the Secret Spice, at least in so far as there is a blanket Secret Spice that enhances learning. 

More recently, in exploring research options with a trusted colleague who shares my scholarship interests, I continued to fine-tune what I have believed for some time to be a “footprint” of this very Secret Spice.  It involves self-efficacy (N. Regier, personal communication, October 18, 2012). 

Self-efficacy’s influence on education is not a new concept. Pajares (1996) noted after careful review of numerous research studies, “Although much remains to be done, the empirical connection between self-efficacy and academic performance and achievement has by now been reasonably secured” (p. 563).  Later, Multon, Brown, & Lent (1991) found with a review of over 30 studies that efficacy beliefs accounted for around 14% of the variance in school performance of students.

The Secret Spice related to self-efficacy is, in actuality, context-dependent, which is probably no surprise to any of us.  Intriguingly, however …  each context-dependent footprint related to self-efficacy – no matter the size, shape, or depth – seems to have similar patterns of treadwear. 

This treadwear presents itself as measurable. 

It is comprised of the qualities of Openness, Resourcefulness, and Persistence, whether these are found in adults or children (Karpman, 2010; Next Element Consulting, LLC, 2010).  “[Openness, Resourcefulness, and Persistence] exist as a cycle, or core point of balance, within each person … [they] are skill sets, social emotional competencies, and approaches to life that both coincide with our natural character strengths and can be developed” (Next Element Consulting, LLC, 2012).

If we accept that Openness, Resourcefulness, and Persistence on any given task or challenge represent, or even help to build the self-efficacy critical for heightened achievement, we can better unearth examples of how the Secret Spice may work to enhance learning.

In one context, the Secret Spice could very well be one’s love of content.  Some children just LOVE math, and I’ll bet that their resultant levels of Openness, Resourcefulness, and Persistence in math would be measurably higher than those who do not.  These characteristics would represent and even enhance Self-Efficacy, the belief that one could attain success through hard work and effort.

Another example of the Secret Spice could be the relationship that students experience through the time and attention of a caring adult.  Some children do not have positive role models at home.  I’ll bet that when those students are in the classrooms of those whom they believe care about them; these children are in turn more Open, Resourceful, and Persistent.  The resultant, positive effect on Self-Efficacy would generate “that belief,” as discussed above.

            Where am I going with this? 

            In the last few years, we in education have been putting time, talent, and treasure into measuring EVERYTHING BUT -- everything BUT unearthing and measuring the Secret Spice.  We have been too busy with programs and standardization of instruction and assessment instead.

How often have we included on our faculty meeting agendas an activity where we take a list of student names and brainstorm how we could enhance Openness, Resourcefulness, and Persistence – INDIVIDUALLY – for each of them?  Frankly, we’re probably under so much pressure to target and measure other things, that we have not had time.   

Wouldn’t it be exciting to try-out a new leadership or teaching strategy and measure whether or not it resulted in more Openness, Resourcefulness, or Persistence in those who are affected by it?  Going beyond … wouldn’t it be interesting to correlate these levels with academic achievement outcomes?

And … wouldn’t it be unique to do this in specific contexts, such as, “What effect does my instructional leadership 'in X setting' have on teachers’ abilities to be Open, Resourceful, and Persistent in co-teaching?” or “What effect does thematic instruction have on students’ abilities to be Open, Resourceful, and Persistent in algebra?”

            Currently, we measure whether students score well. 

We measure the result of a process far removed from the footprints of the Secret Spice that allow children or their teachers the capacities to become more efficacious in their learning in the first place.  At the same time, we experience increased difficulty meeting the needs of at-risk youth who are not achieving, while minimizing the potential impact of Bandura’s point made 15 years ago that a low sense of efficacy in the cognitive domain works against positive peer relations; it also brings about socially alienating, aggressive and transgressive behavior (1997).

I guess I’m making a new case for clinically astute, educational action research as something that may better inform the policy decisions of those well intentioned in ensuring student achievement.

            Why not let it start on your end with a list of students and a conversation in a faculty meeting on what each needs to develop Openness, Resourcefulness, and Persistence.  As a leadership team, you might do the same for your faculty and staff. 

Look for the footprints.  Sharper measurements for smarter schools are within our reach. 

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.  New York, NY: W. Hl Freeman and Company.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2). 191-215.

Karpman, S. (2010). The Redecision Triangle. Retrieved from http://www.karpmandramatriangle.com/pdf/redecision.pdf

Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation.  Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30-38.

Next Element Consulting, LLC. (2012). NEOS^® user certification manual. Newton, KS: Next Element Consulting, LLC.

Next Element Consulting, LLC. (2010). NEOS: The first context sensitive outcomes system. (2010).  Newton, KS: Next Element Consulting, LLC.  Retrieved from http://next-element.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/NEOS-Theory-and-Methods-onWEB.pdf

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings.  Review of Educational Research, 66(4). 543-578.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Ryan Donlan hopes to partner with practitioners in researching the effectiveness of their efforts in school wellness and school reimagination.  If you would like to explore opportunities to measure the results of what you are doing with respect to the openness, resourcefulness, or persistence of those you are doing it with, please don’t hesitate to contact him at ryan.donlan@indstate.edu or (812) 23708624.

           

Teaching is Not an Art

Teaching is Not an Art

Dr. Steve Gruenert

Associate Professor and Department Chair

Department of Educational Leadership

Bayh College of Education

Indiana State University

It seems there are many writers who like to characterize teaching as an art form. As an artist and lover of art, I have always had a difficult time with that analogy.

Then it hit me…

As I recently sat through a music concert, I was cast into a mental oasis, listening to the music as it took me back into my past. Combined with the music was a sense of aesthetic relaxation. “These guys are good – true artists,” I thought.  

That’s when it hit me; they have no idea I am out here.

Sure, they know there is an audience, but the nature of that audience, our knowledge of the music, our ability to follow the music, even our appreciation of the music, did not influence their playing. This particular band will play well whether or not we pay attention, clap, or sing along. They are artists.

Effective teachers, conversely, are very aware of their audience.

They come prepared to bring information to a group, usually knowing who that group is, what the people in that group know and what they need. When members of the teacher’s audience (students) have questions, seem lost, disinterested, or inspired, this tends to influence what teachers will do next. They will adjust what they are doing so the students will walk away with something new they have learned; they may even work with some students one-on-one.

Artists don’t care.

When artists are painting, dancing, or writing, they are unaware of any audience. They typically get into a zone (Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi calls it flow) and proceed to express themselves.

Artists do not stop during their performances to ensure the audience is following along, nor do they care if the audience understands or learns anything. Creating art is not based upon pleasing others. Artists do not think about who will be looking at their work, who will be judging it, who will buy it.

Those who do care about these particulars are not artists; they are salesmen.

Some may claim that teaching is a craft, like pottery or woodworking. When a potter is working on the wheel, he does not let the environment influence what he makes. He does not look up to see if the group is following him – most of the time artists work in solitude because reaction from others during the process can be debilitating. Even at the completion, when all is finished, fired, glazed, and ready for display, he does not let the criticisms, or praise, from the audience determine his next work. Those who seek to please the audience (again) are simply salesmen.

Are salesmen good teachers?

Artists do not let the reaction of the crowd determine their next performance. They do not cater to the masses; they are constantly trying to capture the essence of humanity, reality, emotion, or imagination in an abstract form.

Sometimes artists cannot create that which they intend. Sometimes they just walk away from their work for a few minutes or a few months. Sometimes materials don’t cooperate, yet something aesthetic happens. We call those happy accidents when the work turns out to be something inspiring yet obtuse from the original vision. Where does anything like this occur in the act of teaching?

And, just because teaching is not an art, this does not mean it is a science.

The idea that anything as complex as teaching could be reduced into discrete, measurable behaviors is just silly.

Watch an artist perform, try to identify the “effective” behaviors, or try to identify common behaviors among a group of artists. Whatever recipe seems best to predict successful art will soon be proven wrong by the personality of the next person trying it and/or his or her life situation.

If teaching is not an art, then leading is not an art either – same reasons noted above will apply.

So, if teaching is not an art, nor a science, just “what” is it?

The question seems to require an answer from those who do not understand teaching. Those who do it well do not need a definition, rubric, or explanation. They just know it exists and enjoy the opportunities they have to do it. It may be more like parenting. There is a flexible knowledge of what is to be taught; teachers can identify with the situations in life their students are experiencing, and they care for them. There is a patience for those with reasons for not understanding something quickly and a passion for those who can take the information and apply it to life, perhaps building upon it more.

Teachers are not artists.

Teachers are more like athletes, or soldiers, coming in with a plan but adapting as the situation changes. Effective teachers, and leaders, will adapt to their environments, changing them as needed so they are better able to meet their goals. The only environment an artist has to endure is his or her own mind. Situations and other people may serve as inspiration, but they do not engage the artist. Artists have no moral obligation to ensure the next generation has a better life.

One thing artists may have in common with teachers is sensing the intrinsic reward that comes from knowing they have planted a new idea that may inspire new thinking, but even this elusive outcome is impossible to measure and rarely part of any lesson plan objective.

Take learning, now that is an art.

References

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Perennial.

___________________________________________________________________

Dr. Steve Gruenert encourages your comments, extensions, and even refutations of his perspectives.  Please comment on his article above or write him at steve.gruenert@indstate.edu.