Harnessing the power of our creative and innovative youths

Why are children more creative and innovative than adults? Would this lead on to a systemic way of being more creative/innovative?

The oxymoronic thinking would be that because we know a lot more things as adults...the structures and the methods of being creative, we tend to look down and scoff on some of the ideas given by our children. But the truth of the matter perhaps is that, they could be the ones that have an edge in terms of coming out with these more creative ideas. Perhaps it is this environment of 'not knowing' that provides the catalyst for creativity to bloom. Perhaps...

Designing for the elderly...

I was pretty impressed with some of the thoughts put up by some of my students when I did a group-think sort of exercise on designing a calculator and a mobile phone specifically for the elderly. I thought that perhaps this is something that I would like to showcase immediately, given that they have done and put in some depth and criticality in their thoughts/ideas/comments. Here's the embedded information:

Wall wisher 1

Wall wisher 2

Update: as an update to compatibility issues that I have when viewing on my iPad, I've decided to just put in the URL link instead of embedding the wall wisher in my blog post.

The gift of Giftedness

I have always been tickled by the idea that one is defined as gifted (or not) by virtue of an IQ test, and the resultant score that he or she obtains from that test. During one of the training sessions that I had recently, I can't help but concur with the trainer on how superficial this type of indices is...and like what the trainer mentioned, so what if you have an IQ of 120? What is the maximum score that one can score for this? Does getting such a score, over say a theoretical value of 200 necessarily make him gifted, over say, someone who scores 119? Hmmm...

And the idea that tickled me most was the scenario that educators like me always get from some parents, and giftedness proponents, that in order for one to know that a child is gifted, he or she would have to sit for a test. So lets say the qualifying score for 'being labelled gifted' is 80%, would a child scoring 78% be any less 'ungifted' than one who scores, say 81%. Wouldn't it be even funnier if, say the former scenario happens, the parent were then to ask the child to sit for the test again? And if the child passes the mark, he or she would then be qualified to be called gifted!

So then, is giftedness just about making and reaching that particular number?


On the other hand, I do believe in the existence of natural flair, talents, abilities...but then, if this was just subsumed and labelled under a particular number, it would be such a sad state of affairs for mankind, wouldn't it?

And now just a little something for that comic relief...

What motivates us?

I thought this clip is an interesting one as it perhaps debunk the myth that money is the sole or primary motivator in all of us! How disruptive this idea can be, but nonetheless if such a thing could be use and done to save our planet, I sure do hope that they do it fast:

Dealing with the age of free knowledge

The ride so far for me in this new set up that I am in has been rough so far, but it sure has been one hell of an exhilarating experience. I came to realise that knowledge is free, well almost. Less important than that is this idea that I have about the validity of calling myself a teacher. I think a more appropriate term for my role in the classroom right now would be that of a 'Learning Facilitator'. In this age where everything else can be Googled, and almost every bit of knowledge that has been created since the dawn of Man has been Wiki-ed, who are we as teachers to teach the students something that is totally and 'revolutionarily' NEW? Unless we are engaged in a field that is like totally new to the human race, which is perhaps the sole domain of the few amongst us, what we are teaching our young charges are not new content knowledge per se, but just something that has been discovered by our fathers and forefathers. Well perhaps the definition of 'NEW' here is contextual...yes it is new to our young charges, but then again, there is NO stopping them to learn about quantum physics at age 10 just by Googling, when perhaps a more age-appropriate level is when they are perhaps in upper high school and upwards. But then again, this is again, our assumptions about age-appropriateness.


So perhaps an evolutionary idea here, which I think is currently happening in small sectors of the education field here, is the practice that no longer is learning defined by what is written in the textbooks or assessment books! I mean should we stop teaching and engaging the students if they show interests in the Chaos Theory, just because it is not part of the curriculum. Yes assessment is important at the end of the day, but there should also be certain aspects of their assessment that targets the learning that takes place beyond the classroom or textbooks, the learning that happens when they either pushed the boundaries of their own learning, and start to explore and discover things that they are interested in. As an analogy, this notion is certainly nothing new in the workplaces of innovative firms all around the world. How many times have we heard about how 3M encourages her employees to spend some time within their official working hours, to be engaged in something that they like to do, some thing that seems to be seemingly out of sync with their official duties in the company, but at least they enjoy doing! Hmmm, could we adopt something similar to the education of our future leaders. Perhaps we could...and who knows, we might just do it very very soon!