Can a word first used in the 1600s be considered innovative?
Creative: having the quality of something created rather than imitated, according to Miriam-Webster’s second definition.
Sounds innovative to me.
Did you read from a text book? Watch the teacher work samples on the overhead projector? Complete workbook pages and worksheets?
Sure we did that! But what did we create?
So am I.
I’m thinking we did some creating in art. My art projects were just imitations, however, and poor ones at that.
Eventually I created a few writing pieces. Some of which were very creative (oh to be a kid again), and some of which were pretty good.
I can’t really think of what else I might have created in school.
Drama? A mess?
Creative innovation is necessary for students to find relevance and application of knowledge.
Students have to be allowed to create within the safety net of education. Create doesn’t always mean success. It means trial, error, reassess, and try again.
Think about the scientific method. What does success mean when using the scientific method? It means completing the steps and getting a final answer.
That final answer may or may not be the answer you were seeking. It isn’t a right or wrong answer. It simply is the answer.
Students are preparing for the future, not the past. The issues and concerns they will be called upon to solve don’t even exist yet.
We need to innovate education.
But what does that actually look like?
Even more important, are we truly being innovative or simply trying something new to us?