Talk:Creative pedagogy

Deletion discussion
Hi! I am editing the article on Creative Pedagogy. It is marked for deletion on the grounds of "Neologism"

First of all, the term Creative Pedagogy is used for 20 years, so it is not that "neo/new" as some people think (used since 1989). It is also quite notable because there are lots of works on it. Even if it were a neologism, it has already been accepted by the society.

Second, a neologism, according to the definition is a new word (neo/new + logos/word), and "creative pedagogy" is not a word. It is a combination of two known words: "Creative" (used millions of times) and "pedagogy" (used millions of times). So, the question is whether new combinations are NOT ALLOWED by Wiki?

Third, in the article Pedagogy (general article for all pedagogies), there is a link to Critical Pedagogy. The Critical Pedagogy article is not marked as neologism and not subjected to deletion. Why? Creative pedagogy is opposed to Critical pedagogy and as distinguishable as Critical Pedagogy. Creative pedagogy teaches how to create (to assemble, to synthesize), to develop creative thinking, and to grow "creators," while Critical Pedagogy teaches how to criticize (to disassemble, to analyze), to develop critical thinking, and to grow "critics." Moreover, the differentiation of Creative Pedagogy is explicitely stated in the article (in the form of invention).

The question, therefore, stands why Creative Pedagogy has been marked for deletion? Any justification?

Gem131 Gem131 (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Confusion
The bulleted justification for Creative Pedagogy, i.e. "When in the XX century it turned out that existing ways of teaching and problem solving were not sufficient for the needs of society, there appeared problem-oriented education and schools for Creative problem solving. Creative Pedagogy grew out of them." reminds me of the 5th Geometric Postulate of Euclid.

It stands out from the others, both in its difficulty of phrasing and in its lack of self-evidence.

Fireftr

Overall quality
This article is just awful, the discussion section in particular. It's written in an argumentative style and weasel-words abound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.0.100 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)