Synthesize and Create!

From where I stand in the world, Gardner is putting to words some interesting notions and churning out many difficult questions to ponder.
Gardner touched on the notion of integration of materials across the curriculum:
“…well-intentioned efforts to sustain or buoy the potential for making connections. ... In most cases educators fail to invoke explicit standards in judging which connections, which integrations, which syntheses are valid, and in which ways they are (or are not) meritorious (p.68).” Yikes! But really, I did enjoy his conviction that though integration is a promising practice, a common philosophy, mission statement or overarching goals are imperative for truly successful integration. Indeed a big order, one which requires a great deal of collaboration and Cooperation for a group of dedicated educators to come out with the common glossary of intentions to then successfully integrate material for our students. Not easily or quickly done, but success is possible none-the-less.
I laughed out loud at the very idea of standardized tests to measure one’s creative abilities that he discussed (p. 79). I have taken one of those standardized tests – the art component of the Massachusetts and Maine teacher tests – and each was absurd, at best. Have we yet found a good scale for accurately measuring creativity? If you think you have found one, please let me know. Until then, I do think measuring creativity and artistic ability are like the classic problem of how to nail jello to a wall.
Hooray for the notions Gardner discusses on pages 87 & 88: the importance of problem solving is part of the creative process, one which is an overarching goal of my work with our students. To foster thinking outside the box, if you will. And hip hip hooray! he goes on to underscore the importance of the arts for critical thinking, also an overarching goal in my work. That without the arts being present in our schools, our students are cheated of a chance to really learn to look critically (in a constructive manner) at their work.
He even mentions an issue that came up recently in my 8th grade class: “If the mind of the mind of the young child is charmingly uncritical, the mind of the adolescent is often overly critical – of self and other. Such hypercriticism can thwart creative efforts (87).” I noticed they were making a lot of negative comments about their own work, but there was still a resistance to take creative risks to change the work. The students were getting defensive when we would discuss constructive ideas to rework parts of their projects (we were working on self portraits), thus getting in their way of making solid creative leaps. I had to stop the class and discuss with them that their work and themselves are two different things. So when I encourage them to revisit a piece of their work, I am not attacking them or their character, nor their work! I am giving those art teacher-type nudges to reach the excellence I know they are capable of in their work. Also, that negative thought breeds negativity which dampens any openness for creative problem solving.

Thoughts from the first two chapters

I was never really a reader of prefaces until I wrote my thesis. I realized that very often, the author uses the preface as their last attempt to clarify their intent before you (the reader) launch headlong into the body of their work. Such was the case with Gardner and I wanted to jump up and scream hooray! as I continued to read into the introduction.



So to begin, I will tell you all that I have been a Gardner fan for quite some time. The man and his theory of MI liberated me from the suffocating idea that there was something wrong with me simply because math (as it was taught to me) and standardized tests showed nothing of my skills and baffled me at every turn. Had someone taught geometry to me through the lens of billiards or sailing, I would have had a much different career in high school math!



I came across many passages where I pulled my pencil across the page underlining the statements that intrigued me and wrote my thoughts in the margin (we're keeping these books for ourselves, right?!) The concept of a Mass Compulsory Education came to mind for me (on page 5 in the first paragraph on the page). Our profession is to prepare productive, contributing citizens for our society and possibly the world. I wondered how often we think on that and take a moment from the confining specifics of our day-to-day curriculum to think on our overarching goals for our students? I began to think on the professional development I have had thus far... how much of it was theory and how much of it was aimed at practices?



Taking on globalization and what we can do to prepare ourselves and future generations for it was an interesting topic for me.

"It is easy --but dangerous-- to conclude that all education in the future should simply concentrate on mathematics, science, and technology. And it is equally as easy --and equally as dangerous-- to conclude that the forces of globalization should change everything (p13)."

In short, Gardner gave me this solid belief: the well-rounded individual, and the community who shares separate strengths for the greater good is imperative for our thriving.
Page 15 is what helped solidify any of my deeply held convictions toward any excessive focus on any one discipline being of more value than another.

In the second chapter, many thoughts came to me to ponder. I choose to share with you page 43 and the argument Gardner discussed on the importance of an artist's work changing over time -- which allows for the practice to develop further and grow deeper rather than stale. I thought immediately of artists Cristo and Jeanne Claude whose work has morphed from wrapping objects to challenge how we see spaces, to a more conceptualized presence of fabric to make us examine not only how we see space but how we experience space. Their latest work Gates in NYC is a good example.

In closing: it struck me that Gardner used "she" to refer to the universal human. I don't see it used often enough in writing or conversation -- I wonder how/why he chose to use she instead of the traditional he? Refreshing and interesting.

Thanks to Sydney for creating this forum so that I may sound off and still accommodate my part-time schedule. I look forward to hearing the insights and questions you all came away with from the reading thus far!