Just read Thomas Friedman’s column of that name in today’s New York Times.  Guess I have to read the book of Gladwell’s to which he refers, but…

I suppose you could say I’ve stayed at St. John’s so long because I have often (though certainly not invariably) been able to “invent” a solution to what I’ve seen as needs over the years.

I am a firm believer in the value of getting students to ask questions (though when I have too much to do, if I’m not careful I simply try to get them to think by the more prosaic method of asking questions that don’t have simple answers).  I am definitely in favor of creativity applied to traditional “problems” (whether school-contrived ones like papers or more widely ranging):

see  https://sites.google.com/site/english4dlr/philosophy-and-literature/writing

I am still skeptical about the digital portfolio idea, perhaps because I don’t see how it “shows mastery of skills like critical thinking” to quote one of the things it’s supposed to do.

I think the idea of diplomas through merit badges is a very cool idea, partly because it aligns with my long-favored-and-usually-ignored-by-others attitude toward learning: that we should evaluate it based on outputs (demonstrated accomplishment) rather than inputs (spending a defined amount of time in a course).  The hybrid system we currently have (“grades” to measure accomplishment within a framework dominated by courses and seat time) is somewhat of a compromise.  The often dominant attitude of “course consistency” and “consistent grade spreads” of many administrators or those who buy into their model significantly undermines the stealth innovation that could otherwise take place (which might be their goal, of course).   As it is, to be innovative within a basically conservative framework requires earning and gaining the trust of students and parents so they don’t freak out when really interested or talented students get challenged beyond the normal course confines.

The idea that “creativity is more important than facts” is certainly true when applied to those who have facts.  Facts+creativity trumps a pedestrian application of facts.  I am skeptical (though perhaps because of my age) how one nurtures creativity in a fact-free environment.  I still work on how to encourage the growth of the one while requiring certain proficiency in the attainment of the other.  While it is true that you can look up many facts, it’s certainly not easy to find ones that you need if they are not simultaneously ones that many people routinely look up (a point often overlooked by the “why learn anything you can look up?” school.

I also think (but again, this may be my age showing) that constructing a knowledge base requires analysis and interpretation rather than just access to “facts.”  And hence, being able not just to understand  “integration by parts” (to pick a calculus example) but to be able to pick up the cryptic (in the root sense of “hidden”) skills necessary to use it effectively is still a legitimate goal of a calculus course.  Not because one ever needs to “integrate by parts” except in contrived circumstances (thanks to mathematical software and Wolfram Alpha), but because being able to approach problem-solving creatively (by spending time learning how to learn tools) is a useful life skill.