GENIUS EDUCATION METHODOLOGY – MYSTERY OR MAGIC?
Suzanna Ramos
Teachers Network, Ministry of Education, Singapore
suzannaramos@gmail.com
Abstract
This paper introduces how Genius Education Methodology has made a significant impact on 13 primary school students. It is a well-known reality that not every child at the primary school makes it to the secondary school, due to myriad reasons like low pre-school preparation, lack of a supportive home background, inability to consolidate basic language and mathematical skills and perceived bad attitudes towards learning. The 13 students who attended this workshop were characterized as slow learners – passive, uncreative and unmotivated. In fact one of the teachers mentioned, “Actually, when we selected (the) students, we thought they were those who cannot be helped.” During the 3 days of the workshop, they were engaged in a series of exercises intended to change their attitude to learning and to discover their potential. In the 2002 PSLE (Primary School Leaving Examination) results, all 13 students passed, with 12 making it to the secondary school and 1 to the Institute of Technical Education (ITE). My findings, based on interviews with the students in the secondary school one and a half years since they attended the workshop, will be shared in this paper.
About the Author
Suzanna Ramos is the Director of Creativity Ventures Pte. Ltd., which aims to facilitate creativity and innovation. Prior to this, she has been involved in education, where she served as Head of Department, Vice-Principal and Professional Development Officer at the Ministry of Education in Singapore. Her Areas of expertise are creative problem solving techniques in the fields of pedagogy, mentoring and professional development as well as cross-cultural creativity. She holds a Master of Science degree in Creative Studies and Change Leadership from the University of New York (College at Buffalo) and a Bachelor of Arts degree (Hons) from the National University of Singapore.
Keywords : Creativity, MegaCreativity, Genius
BACKGROUND
I have always been intrigued by the concept of creativity. There have been numerous definitions of creativity, and I have now come to realize that defining creativity is creativity in itself. So when I met Dr Andrei G. Aleinikov in 2001 at the 12th International Conference on Creativity in Colleges and Universities in Midland, Michigan, USA, I was excited to note that his definition of creativity seemed to veer from the more conventional definitions of simply describing creativity. Aleinikov (1999) states that "creativity is the human activity of accelerating the process of organization" or, in my understanding, it is the acceleration of development. Therefore an increase in idea production applied to human development leads to accelerated development. New scientific vision of creativity and innovation led to the discovery of MegaCreativity and MegaInnovation, which in turn led to MegaCreative Mind (a mind capable of producing millions of ideas) and MegaInnovative Mind (a mind producing millions of innovations). The combination of both is a genius. Indeed, Aleinikov (2002) suggests that “a genius is very broadly recognized for his or her enormously innovative deeds that benefit society”. So if we can teach MegaCreativity and MegaInnovation, this would be Genius Education Methodology (GEM). Since Aleinikov thinks that a genius is a highly creative individual with accelerated idea production that will be able to benefit society, the mission of GEM is finding geniuses and teaching geniuses.
It is not within the scope of this paper to delve deeply into the concepts of MegaCreativity. However for the purpose of understanding what the 13 students were taught at the GEM workshop, I shall briefly include the Five Laws.
The First Law of MegaCreativity is “Quit Quitting”. It simply means never stop, or to keep on going. The paradoxical nature of the phrase is what makes this law appealing. For example, one can question whether if one quits quitting, it is still quitting after all. But it is precisely because of this paradoxical nature that people can remember this law better. After all, it is the bedrock of MegaCreativity.
The Second Law is “Why Not Every K(not)?” Every ‘not' uttered is like a knot, in our bodies and minds. It suggests that we are basically not open to other ideas and perspectives. So when something seems impossible, the right question to ask should be “Why not?” This then brings about openness, possibilities and removes blocks. Of course, moral, ethical and legal edicts constitute exceptions from this type of questioning.
It can be noted that these first two laws bring about a change of mindset and openness to learning and new experiences. The next three laws build on this new freedom of thinking. The Third Law, “Go For A Million”, suggests that one has to generate more than 2 or 3 solutions to a problem; in fact, practising special methods and techniques of MegaCreativity, to go for a million solutions! Since MegaCreativity liberates the mind and opens immense opportunities, some serious responsibilities also come into play. The next Law, “Mega-Value People”, states that people are the priority. People are of more value than anything else and when they are seen as “less creative”, should still be treated with care and respect. If MegaCreativity exists, it exists for them and is not to be used against them. The last Law, “Mega-Innovate”, suggests that the new results achieved, thanks to the skills and abilities of MegaCreativity, must be applied to learning, work-related and real-world problems and shared with people in millions of possible ways through articles, books, inventions, performances, etc.
WORKSHOP
Now that the laws have been briefly described, it is also worthwhile to note that the students who participated in the GEM workshop were Primary Six students from the EM3 stream, except for one student, who was from the tail end of the EM2 stream. The workshop was 2½ days, with their form teachers (who were all mostly Heads of Department and Subject Heads), the Principal and Vice Principal as participants as well. Dr Aleinikov conducted the workshop during the March holidays in 2002.
My role at the workshop was initially to help Dr Aleinikov with the logistics and to be a participant so that I could learn his methods. However, I noted interesting observations during the workshop and became more of a silent observer. Also, after the workshop was over, and students were in tears because they did not want this workshop to finish, I informed Dr Aleinikov that I would like to interview the students later. So more than a year after the workshop, I decided to see if the GEM had any impact on them. I was also fuelled by the desire to not just harp on creative methods of teaching but to also investigate the child’s outlook on life as a result of learning these methods. As Dr E. Paul Torrance (2002), the father of creativity tests, also often called "The Creativity Man", noted, more longitudinal studies on creativity are needed. I thought this small study would offer certain perspectives on the impact of creativity on the students in question.
INTERVIEWS AND FINDINGS
The interviews were about 20 minutes to half an hour and the students' responses were recorded and noted in a table form. The various headings included the following:
The students were interviewed in October 2003 after their final semestral examinations, except for one student, who had to be interviewed early in 2004 as she had been hospitalized during the time of the first interview. Also, only 12 students were interviewed as one of the students had gone to the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) and could not be traced. The interviews were deliberately timed so that the impact of GEM could be seen as its true worth after 1½ years. I shall provide the students’ general responses to the headings provided above while more detailed case studies of two students will be outlined later.
All the students indicated that they remembered the workshop but forgot some details of the workshop. Since 1½ years had lapsed, this was clearly understandable. They all could remember that it was a fun and creative workshop and that they felt happy attending it. They remembered activities like drawing, puzzles and stories (Dr Aleinikov had told them true stories of geniuses like Albert Einstein and Pablo Picasso, where they experienced learning difficulties). They identified with the stories and understood that even geniuses did not always have an easy childhood. They were also able to say that the workshop was to help them to be smart and creative.
Four students could actually cite the first two laws, “Quit Quitting” and “Why Not Every K(not)”. Moreover, they were able to articulate their understanding of these two laws and gave their own versions of the laws to show that understanding. One student even explained why any block on the body would inhibit learning. Five students told me that the workshop was about making them a genius!
At this point I was more interested in how the workshop had helped them. I was surprised to note that all but one student attributed their PSLE success to what they had learnt during the workshop. They agreed that their teachers had helped them tremendously in their revision. However, they also stated that their attitude towards learning had changed somewhat, albeit in varying degrees. Most of them stated that they were motivated to study harder and when I asked them why, they simply mentioned the first two laws. They explained that they tried not to give up in their studies. It was interesting to note that four students mentioned that they started to like Mathematics better and discovered that they were not so bad in the subject after all.
Although one student mentioned that he did not find any change in himself, he conceded that there was “a little bit change” after the workshop because he had a “little bit more confidence” in himself. Five students agreed that they were naughty before and tried very hard to be good in class after the workshop, although sometimes it did not work. But I thought the intention was still noble and that the orientation to good behaviour merits the GEM!
Since they all received certificates for completing the workshop, I was curious to find out if that had any significance. One student mentioned that he misplaced it and could not find it while another said that she could not find it because she had shifted to another house. The rest of the students stated that they kept their certificates safely. Two students had it displayed on the wall while another even made the certificate into a poster size. When I asked him why, he replied that it brought him good memories and it reminded him that he was a genius. Most of them had their certificates in files that they kept together with other mementoes. They also indicated that time and again, they would look at the certificate and remember what they had learnt. Two even said that when they faced problems, they would go back and look at the certificate to remind themselves not to give up.
There were varying ways as to how they adopted the techniques they had learnt to their studies. One student responded that besides not giving up in his Mathematics practice, he even used the first law in his composition examination during the PSLE. When asked to elaborate, he mentioned that he weaved in the law as part of a narrative. This was significant as I felt that this was his way of trying to make his composition original. Most of the other students responded that they tried to apply the two laws in their studies by not giving up so easily, by solving the Mathematics problems in various ways and spending more time on their studies. One student actually mentioned that immediately after the workshop, he was so motivated that he started to do his homework that he had neglected. He asked for more worksheets from his teacher as he felt his confidence level increase. Four students mentioned that they would ask for help if they faced problems in their studies. Obviously this is one of the principles taught at the GEM workshop. I remember that Dr Aleinikov had told the students to ask if they had any queries at all and kept emphasizing that throughout the workshop.
All but one student indicated that their parents were surprised that they had passed the PSLE. In fact one student remarked that his parents were “shocked” at the result. They recounted how their parents had rewarded them - buying a bicycle, a computer, bringing them to a restaurant and a trip to Hong Kong. Two students indicated that their parents did not do anything special but gave them money as a reward instead.
As for their teachers, they all agreed that their teachers motivated them and encouraged them. However, it was interesting to discover that their teachers did not make any mention of genius or make any reference to the two laws, especially when they attended the same workshop as these students.
Only three students indicated that they did not have any particular goal in life as they still wanted to find out what they were interested in. The others had lofty goals – successful businessmen, police, pilot, managers. They mentioned that now that they had confidence in passing the PSLE, they had more hope that they will be able to find good jobs.
When I interviewed the students, I noticed that when the GEM workshop was mentioned, there was a smile on their faces. It was quite obvious to me that they had a meaningful time. Two students actually had tears in their eyes because they sincerely felt that the workshop had changed them. They all indicated that they would need another workshop as they were now in the secondary school and would like to learn more methods to help them in their studies. They also felt that the duration of the workshop should have been longer. It was interesting to note that two students immediately lay their hands on the table instead of folding their arms during the interview as they casually remarked that they should not have blocks on the body. Although this was more relevant within a learning environment, it was heartening to note that they still remembered.
In short, it can be concluded that they were able to learn, they wanted to learn, they were creative and unique and ready to work hard. They had all the basic features of geniuses!!
At this juncture, I would like to highlight 2 students, who had experienced the most change from the workshop.
Case Study 1: Justin Lim
Justin was seen as the most challenging child in the class. In fact his teacher stated the following:
I was attending the other workshop just before that, and I was tired. But I was hoping this one would be the answer (to my quest) because Justin is in my class. Also, I was hoping that I would learn more because there are always other Justins in other classes.
However, during the workshop, I noticed that he was the most active, was able to solve many of the puzzles and answered many questions correctly. In fact, he followed the two laws so closely to the point of being seen as disruptive in the class. Right after teaching the two laws, Dr Aleinikov set a task for the students and teachers. He gave them a square sheet of paper and asked them to make a "round square". Immediately I noticed the adults folding the paper to make it more round. Justin simply crushed the paper and rolled it on the floor. He took a second sheet and proceeded to make a hole in the centre of the paper, stick a pencil through and used his hands to turn the paper around. At this point, some teachers expressed their displeasure at him and told him to behave while Dr Aleinikov actually calmed them down and explained that any creative solution is good if it solves the problem. Justin, as Dr Aleinikov explained, had indeed fulfilled the two laws! He took the unconventional path of crushing the paper (“Why Not Every K(not)”) and did two demonstrations instead of just doing one (“Quit Quitting”). It was interesting to note that the adults did the task only once while the students pressed on, trying to do more.
When I asked Justin about this, he simply said that he was trying to fulfil what he had learnt at the workshop. He stated that he always liked to look for alternative solutions and that was why he liked the workshop so much. It proved that it was not wrong to be creative. He recounted another incident where he felt he tried to look for an alternative solution. At an orientation camp for secondary one students, one of the group activities was to put a basketball in the centre while the members in the group, standing in a circle, take turns to touch the ball with both their hands consecutively. The objective of the activity was for each group member to take turns to touch the ball in the fastest possible time. However, Justin took the ball and stayed in the middle of the group. He told the members to have their palms outstretched sideways so that each member touched the palm of the other. He then simply held the ball and touched every one of their palms. The group won because they took the fastest time. He explained during the interview that he tried to think out of the so-called normal solution. He asked himself, “What if the ball is the one that is moving and not the hands? And why not?” Immediately he found his solution because he had asked the right question.
Another interesting thing he remembered was that when there are blocks in the body, he will not be able to absorb as much information during the lesson. He says that he makes an effort to sit straight in class and not to place his head on the table. He believes he is able to understand his lessons better because of his posture. However, he conceded that he found his lessons boring as he had to keep quiet most of the time. He had always wanted to question and challenge certain things that the teachers had taught but felt wronged as his teachers viewed it as ill-discipline.
Case Study 2: Muhammad Ansari bin Mohamed
Ansari summarized the whole workshop when he said that “we were taught skills of doing more things than what we are supposed to do”. He explained that the workshop gave him self-confidence and that he believed that he could do more challenging things, especially when it came to Mathematics, a subject he initially disliked.
His mother was very convinced that he would be posted to a Normal Technical stream but was “shocked” when he went to the Normal Academic stream instead. According to him, his mother was surprised at the change in his behaviour that she wondered whether “a magician” had changed him. Ansari went on to recount what had happened after he obtained his "miraculous" results. His mother organized a birthday party for him and his relatives. They were also surprised that he had passed his major exam. They asked him if he had been tutored but he replied that the one thing that helped him was the GEM. He told them about the two laws that he had learnt and some stories that he could remember but they were still not convinced. When I mentioned the fourth law, “Mega-Value People”, he then understood that people would be incredulous on hearing about his success. He told me that he wanted as many people to benefit from what he had learnt and hoped that he would have an opportunity to be at the workshop again as he would like to review some techniques.
Conclusion
After interviewing the students I realized that they had tried to put into practice what they had learnt. The amazing thing was that the impact of Genius Education Methodology was still there - the change had happened and was clearly seen. But most of them admitted that as they went on further in secondary school, they slowly started losing some self-confidence again. There are some insights and implications that I have gleaned from this experience as an educator. Firstly, creative teaching methods have been viewed as something ‘out there’ and not very relevant to students who will be sitting for a major examination. The revision has to go on and there is no time for creative ways of teaching as they take time and effort. But as can be seen from the interviews, the students had tried to make sense of what they had learnt but they needed help to practise the skills and techniques in a conscious manner.
Secondly, I believe that as teachers, we must be able to appreciate that if we want our students to be creative, we ourselves should practise methods and techniques of creativity. As seen in Justin’s case, his act of making something round was totally out of the teachers’ paradigm of how it should be and thus, misconstrued as ill-behaviour. If creative students are described as independent, self-confident, possessing high energy level and bored by the routine and the obvious, the challenge for teachers is to look for pedagogical practices that allow for more divergence within the curriculum.
As one educator put it succinctly at the end of the workshop,
I was skeptical at the beginning. And then I changed because I saw a lot of change in (the) children. The workshop has reinforced my belief that there’s a genius in every child. Creativity is not an innate characteristic, and there are easy and practical ways to nurture that in every child.
Finally, I'd like to remind you of the phrase from the abstract: The 13 students who attended this workshop were characterized as slow learners – passive, uncreative and unmotivated. In fact one of the teachers mentioned, “Actually, when we selected (the) students, we thought they were those who cannot be helped.” That same teacher commented after the workshop, "And we were waiting for a miracle. We wanted to see how you can perform a miracle. And when they were reading their works, we've seen that it happened. They are unique".
Perhaps, we should be grateful that there are “other Justins in other classes”. It is really for us to decide whether Genius Education Methodology is a mystery, magic, miracle, or just a new educational approach that can save our geniuses and help many of our students succeed academically and in life.
REFERENCES:
Aleinikov, A. (2002). MegaCreativity: Five Steps to Thinking Like a Genius. Cincinnati, Ohio: Walking Stick Press.
Aleinikov, A. (1999). Mega-Creator: From Creativity to Mega-, Giga-, and Infi-Creativity. Montgomery, Alabama: Mega-Innovative Mind International Institute.
Torrance, E.P. (2002). Future Needs of Creativity Research, Training and Programmes. In Aleinikov, A. (Ed). Future of Creativity – The University of Georgia Annual Lectures of Creativity, 2-9
Teachers’ quotations retrieved from
http://www.kms-inc.net/docs/Singapore2002.pdf, accessed April 2, 2004.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr Andrei G. Aleinikov for allowing me to understudy his workshops on MegaCreativity and the Principals and Vice-Principals of the various secondary schools for giving me the opportunity to interview the students.
To the true geniuses of this study, my sincere thanks:
Northbrooks Secondary School
- Nurhazwani bte Muhammad Salim
- Lee Shi Long
Sembawang Secondary School
- Andy Kan
Yishun Secondary School
- Danny Wong Wai Leong
Naval base Secondary School
- Teo Chee Yong
- Muhammad Arif bin Agus
- Huang Jin Long
- Cheng Wei Hong
Chung Cheng High (Branch)
- Lee Wee Kiat
Yishun Town Secondary School
- Muhammad Ansari bin Mohd
North View Secondary School
- Justin Lim
Riverside Secondary School
Anuar Fitri bin Mohd Kamal
Copyright © 2004 Suzanna Ramos: The author assigns to Singapore Polytechnic and educational non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is produced. The author also grants a non-exclusive licence to Singapore Polytechnic to publish this document in full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors) on CD-Rom and in printed form within the Global Conference on Excellence in Education and Training proceedings. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the author.