User:Gem131

Hi! Greetings to all in all languages and cultures! :) Gem131 Gem131 (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

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" 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).

Finally, the term "Creative Pedagogy" is not only used in the academic research, but also DISCUSSED and COMMENTED ON in the Encyclopedic Dictionary (please see ref.[2] or doc.unicor.ru/tt/185.html)

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

Gem131 Gem131 (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I am also editing the article on MegaCreativity.

Made lots of changes: 1. Explained the term and gave mathematical explanations. 2. For my objection to the deletion proposal on the grounds of Neologism, please see above. The arguments are the same.) 3. Explained that it is not a marketing or advertising trick, but a mathematical concept. 4. Deleted the pics of books. 5. Added some historical explanations why MegaCreativity is introduced. 6. Added "computational creativity" as a field concerned. 7. Added the last statement that MegaCreativity is just a step.

I look forward to your remarks. Thank you.

Gem131 Gem131 (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)