Embedded Files
Right Brain vs. Left Brain MYTHS
Right Brain vs. Left Brain MYTHS
Congratulations! You have discovered the supplemental section of my website on the science behind creativity and the brain, this is where research and practice come together! If you were active in K-12 art classes, you should have a good foundation in drawing skills, because most K-12 teachers use strategies like those found in "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain". The weekly assignments in those types of curriculums will help you break the distoritions of "symbolic perception".
HOWEVER! Did you know that Roger Sperry, the researcher who first studied brain lateralization, received a Nobel Prize for his split brain experiments in 1981, only two years after the first edition of Betty Edwards' "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" was published?
As educator Donald H. Taylor has stated:
"At this time the idea that creativity was a right-brain activity was common place, and must have seemed a reasonable explanation for why her very effective classroom teaching worked. But the story has an interesting sequel. Whatever the title and contents of the book may have been when it was first published in 1979, Edwards now makes no claims about the location of creativity in the brain:
'Betty Edwards has used the terms L-Mode and R-Mode to designate two ways of knowing and seeing – the verbal, analytic mode and the visual, perceptual mode – no matter where they are located in the individual brain.'" (Taylor 2009)
← Watch the videos to the right to see how far brain research has come since misconceptions about creativity and rationality became pervasive in the 1980s.
And while we are at it, let's debunk one more big myth about brain research in education:
The Four C's of Creativity
The Four C's of Creativity
Educational research often helpfully divides creativity into four categories: mini-c, little-c, Pro-c, and Big-C (Kaufman and Beghetto, 2009).
Educational research often helpfully divides creativity into four categories: mini-c, little-c, Pro-c, and Big-C (Kaufman and Beghetto, 2009).
Levels of the Four C Model of Creativity
Big-C creators are eminent and often revolutionary creators in their fields (Csikszentmihalyi, 2013). They are rare and seldom found in a makerspace setting, but their work can inspire creators of all types.
Big-C creators are eminent and often revolutionary creators in their fields (Csikszentmihalyi, 2013). They are rare and seldom found in a makerspace setting, but their work can inspire creators of all types.
Pro-c creators do their work as a vocation or avocation at a level of quality that is competitive in the marketplace or otherwise valued in professional settings.
Pro-c creators do their work as a vocation or avocation at a level of quality that is competitive in the marketplace or otherwise valued in professional settings.
little-c creators: Hobbyists, who are nevertheless creating original works, are classified as little-c.
little-c creators: Hobbyists, who are nevertheless creating original works, are classified as little-c.
mini-c creators: All creativity starts at the level of mini-c (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2007), in which people “construct knowledge in ways that are meaningful to them, a necessary step in developing any sustained pursuit and integral to constructing the frames of reference necessary for all the other levels within a domain” (Culpepper & Gauntlett, 2020, p. 266). This type of creativity is like that of a cook who is following a recipe for the first time, which constitutes an act of creation and new learning for the cook, but from an outside perspective does not represent a significant form of innovation or improvisation necessary to be recognized as a higher level creativity. (You can read more about the Four C's from Walden University.)
mini-c creators: All creativity starts at the level of mini-c (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2007), in which people “construct knowledge in ways that are meaningful to them, a necessary step in developing any sustained pursuit and integral to constructing the frames of reference necessary for all the other levels within a domain” (Culpepper & Gauntlett, 2020, p. 266). This type of creativity is like that of a cook who is following a recipe for the first time, which constitutes an act of creation and new learning for the cook, but from an outside perspective does not represent a significant form of innovation or improvisation necessary to be recognized as a higher level creativity. (You can read more about the Four C's from Walden University.)
Makerspaces by definition are places where all ages and levels of creativity are represented (Sheridan et al., 2014). Non-educational, or informally structured, makerspaces are more concerned with individual projects and goals than inspiring a general growth in learning. In these settings, striving for higher levels of creativity is generally left up to the whims of the individual. Formal educationally-based makerspaces are intended to intentionally inspire and motivate learners to employ the maker mindset to progress to higher and higher levels of creative quality based on their past and current creative performances. Given the fact that creative assignments within a makerspace are by their nature open ended, how would one assess success when the final product is determined by the learner? Could such a creative assessment foster lifelong learning habits?
Makerspaces by definition are places where all ages and levels of creativity are represented (Sheridan et al., 2014). Non-educational, or informally structured, makerspaces are more concerned with individual projects and goals than inspiring a general growth in learning. In these settings, striving for higher levels of creativity is generally left up to the whims of the individual. Formal educationally-based makerspaces are intended to intentionally inspire and motivate learners to employ the maker mindset to progress to higher and higher levels of creative quality based on their past and current creative performances. Given the fact that creative assignments within a makerspace are by their nature open ended, how would one assess success when the final product is determined by the learner? Could such a creative assessment foster lifelong learning habits?
Click the image above to download my rubric based on Harvard's 8 Studio Habits and the Elements and Priciples of Design.
Student Assessment
Student Assessment
Harvard University’s “Project Zero” was named in 1967 by Nelson Goodman because ‘‘zero’’ was systematically known at the time about learning in the arts (Sheridan, 2011). During his tenure at Project Zero, Howard Gardner (the developer of Multiple Intelligence Theory) helped develop the The Eight Studio Habits of Mind. It represents one of the most process-based and transferable approaches to creative assessment today. Kimberly M. Sheridan states in her article, “Envision and Observe: Using the Studio Thinking Framework for Learning and Teaching in Digital Arts” that the Eight Studio Habits are “well suited to integrate studies of arts learning and teaching in a range of contexts, and it provides a framework for understanding how visual arts participation is dramatically changing with the advent of digital tools and the Internet” (p. 19). Flexible assessment tools, while invaluable resources for establishing measures of creative habits, do little to foster them on their own. Therefore we must inquire further into which instructional practices educators should employ to foster this progression of growth through the “Four C” stages of creativity within a makerspace. A guiding pedagogical framework, preferably supported by current research in education or cognitive psychology, is also needed to best structure these instructional practices to give them the clearest possible and most effective direction.
Harvard University’s “Project Zero” was named in 1967 by Nelson Goodman because ‘‘zero’’ was systematically known at the time about learning in the arts (Sheridan, 2011). During his tenure at Project Zero, Howard Gardner (the developer of Multiple Intelligence Theory) helped develop the The Eight Studio Habits of Mind. It represents one of the most process-based and transferable approaches to creative assessment today. Kimberly M. Sheridan states in her article, “Envision and Observe: Using the Studio Thinking Framework for Learning and Teaching in Digital Arts” that the Eight Studio Habits are “well suited to integrate studies of arts learning and teaching in a range of contexts, and it provides a framework for understanding how visual arts participation is dramatically changing with the advent of digital tools and the Internet” (p. 19). Flexible assessment tools, while invaluable resources for establishing measures of creative habits, do little to foster them on their own. Therefore we must inquire further into which instructional practices educators should employ to foster this progression of growth through the “Four C” stages of creativity within a makerspace. A guiding pedagogical framework, preferably supported by current research in education or cognitive psychology, is also needed to best structure these instructional practices to give them the clearest possible and most effective direction.
At first glance, the already pervasive theoretical framework of learning styles in education, which advocates differentiated learning targeted towards each learner’s preferred learning mode, seems like a good fit for the makerspace model. Certainly makerspaces, which often combine concepts and practices of science, technology, engineering, art, and math into a disciplinary framework (often referred to as STEAM) by nature almost arrive ready-made to fit within such a theoretical framework. Learning is already inherently differentiated within most makerspace activities.
At first glance, the already pervasive theoretical framework of learning styles in education, which advocates differentiated learning targeted towards each learner’s preferred learning mode, seems like a good fit for the makerspace model. Certainly makerspaces, which often combine concepts and practices of science, technology, engineering, art, and math into a disciplinary framework (often referred to as STEAM) by nature almost arrive ready-made to fit within such a theoretical framework. Learning is already inherently differentiated within most makerspace activities.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse