By Holly Korbey

In Sherri Scott’s first grade class, the daily “main lesson” pages students work on — essentially their handmade textbooks made up of words, numbers, and artwork — are copied straight from the old-fashioned blackboard, not created. And that’s the point.

“It’s what we do in Waldorf schools,” Scott says. “In the lower grades, those initial main lesson pages are copied as closely as possible, to allow practice and more practice with shading, perspective, accuracy, spatial awareness. All that practice copying turns into a keen eye and skilled hand when given free rein in the upper grades.”

For many dedicated to re-making our schools as hubs of dynamic innovation and creativity, getting good at math or science or literacy might be better found in techniques like inquiry-based learning, less emphasis on standardized testing, and avoiding the soul-numbing “drill and kill” exercises and worksheets used to instill basic skills.

But what if the right drill –– without the kill — actually encourages creativity?

Teach Like a Champion author Doug Lemov proposes this very idea in his new book, Practice Perfect: 42 Rules for Getting Better at Getting Better. His Rule Number 4, “Unlock Creativity… With Repetition,” falls in line with virtuoso musicians, elite athletes, and Malcolm Gladwell’s “10,000 hours rule” — that creativity actually comes after lots and lots of rote learning (also called practice)

has built a solid foundation of skills. Focused practice, Lemov has found in his research training teachers, actually automates a process in one’s body, which then becomes fertile ground for creative breakthroughs and individual variations.

To explain why his teachers have had so much creative success with repetitive practice, Lemov told the story of a particularly good literature teacher who would get stumped when students would respond to text questions with answers that were very far afield. “She would ask kids, ‘What do you think about x,’ and they would say the darndest things,” Lemov recalls. “And the teacher would just freeze. She just didn’t know how to respond to the unexpected answers.” Lemov suggested she meet with another teacher once a week for 10 minutes and do nothing but respond to unexpected questions – in other words, practice receiving really wrong answers, so she could work on her response.

The results, according to Lemov, were outstanding. “After three or four weeks, she was a totally different teacher. She was more confident. Her mind wasn’t focused on, ‘What am I going to say?’ She had reallocated her thinking from lower-order task to higher-order task, and it made her more creative teaching in the moment when she needed it most.”

9781118216583_cover.inddBut not everybody agrees with this premise. From a scientific standpoint, says John Kounios, Professor of Psychology at Drexel University and co-author of upcoming book Insight: Aha Moments, Creativity, and the Brain, the connection between creativity and automaticity is complicated. “Yes, it is true that many ‘Aha moment’ breakthroughs come to people who have mastered an area. However, the opposite is often the case: once a person has mastered something, their thinking about it often becomes locked in and it’s difficult for them to break out of this mental straightjacket.”

Some educators believe that a side-by-side combination of rote work and “aha” moments works better for students. While there’s no doubt that repeated practice is the key to mastering any craft, “much of the way we’ve structured education is about the repetition without actually getting to create at the task itself,” says arts and literacy educator Kurt Wootton, co-author of A Reason to Read. “In my view, the repetition must not come before allowing students to participate in the creative tasks, but rather repeated practice walks side-by-side with the creative process.”

Wootton gave an example of his childhood piano lessons that were comprised of endless scales. “I never knew why I was practicing those scales or what they were for,” he said. “I was never given the chance to create anything musical in the ten years I played piano. It was always the repetition and practice without the chance to create. This would be the same as memorizing the rules of basketball and shooting endless free throws without ever learning to play the game.”

[RELATED: How Much Practice is Too Much?]

In Wootton’s experience, bringing in the creative process shows students “the whole game” and gives them a reason to go back and get better at specific skills that require rote practice. “Creativity is about immediate play. Students learn by doing and feeling the immediacy of the creative experience,” he said.

“In schools we do ‘drill and kill’ our students. We ask them to go through endless acts of practice and memorization (multiplication tables, memorizing the periodic table of elements, spelling quizzes, grammar lessons, scales, free throws, batting practice) often without the payoff of actually doing the real work the skills were meant for,” he said.

And don’t forget, says cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham, author of Why Don’t Students Like School?, that the kill in “drill and kill” refers to motivation, which is key to learning whatever skill is being taught. “I think terrible instruction would kill motivation for any topic, and that’s regardless of the content,” Willingham said. “Can you imagine a hands-on workshop — which should be an engaging method — on a topic you find intrinsically interesting that was really boring? Sure, it’s easy. Topic and method are no guarantee that students will be engaged, and therefore there’s some risk that their motivation will drop.”

But, Willingham is quick to point out, “the risk for boredom and lack of engagement is higher for practicing things that students feel they already know. It’s probably more demanding of the teacher to make it fresh and to keep students wanting to engage.”


With her first graders, Sherri Scott works hard at finding the delicate balance between engaging them in creative play and performing rote tasks they’ll need later. As she described the myriad ways she has students learn “100,” through writing and counting, organizing and artwork, Scott affirmed her belief that rote practice pays off in creativity further down the road. “If you want to know what 100 ‘is,’ having those math facts internalized allows you to deal with 100 in so many, many ways. Rather than just knowing 10 x 10 is 100, or 4 x 25 is 100, you’d be able to pull 100 apart and put it back together without analyzing it.”

[RELATED: How Do You Spark a Love of Math in Kids?]

Lemov would certainly agree: “Creativity is play within a system of rules, and you can only play with the rules once you understand the systems. You have to see the theme first to understand the variations.”

Practice Perfect is a paean to the “humble power” of the kind of practice that makes you better, and more creative. In the book, Lemov quotes legendary UCLA basketball coach (and king of practice) John Wooden, who said, “Drilling creates a foundation on which individual initiative and imagination can flourish.”

Perhaps Wooden is precisely what the British government had in mind when they recently designed a poetry contest that asks students to learn the poetry “by heart,” not by rote. English poet Jean Sprackland explained the difference beautifully: “Well, I suppose there’s a great difference between learning by heart and the old-fashioned, rather dusty phrase ‘learning by rote.’ So there’s a thought that if you learn by heart it means you take the poem right into yourself, it becomes part of you. And it remains with you, probably for the rest of your life. I think a lot of us can remember bits of poetry that we learned when we were very young. So it’s something that lives with you forever.”

Can Repetitive Exercises Actually Feed the Creative Process? 10 April,2017MindShift

  • As educators refer to Bloom’s Taxonomy to design classroom experiences, too often the highest ladders are left unclimbed. For example, in the teaching of poetry form, rhyme, theme, etc., are almost always taught. But how about writing original poetry? In this case, practicing the basics releases the mind, and even the soul, of the student into creativity.

  • I home schooled my own children before retuning to the classroom to teach. We were very much into the classical education model in our home school. In the younger grades the foundations are laid, including repetition. This grammar stage is a natural time to memorize. In grades 6-8 students naturally advance to a logic (or argumentative stage). They have the core in their gut, but they begin to question it. Great! In high school they advance to the rhetoric stage. They have the facts memorized in the grammar stage, they argued it out in the logic stage, and now they apply it in the rhetoric stage.
    A great essay to read is “The Lost Tools of Learning” by Dorothy Sayers where she argues for a return to this progression of learning. This essay was written in the late 1940’s and can still be applied today.

  • Andrea Johnston

    WOW! I agree with the everything Holley Korbey is saying in this very interesting article. I think kid’s learning is inspired by the heart and not by drills. I remember going to school and being so bored in the classroom because all I could do in the classroom mos to the time was to drill and kills the skills my teachers wanted me to learn regarless of my teaching learning curve. I think we need to offer students more choices to learn in the classroom and letting studnets be creative, decide and take ownership of their own learning. I have been teacher for over 10 years now and the more time I spend with children, the more I realized that students are craving creative and ways to learn in their own ways rather than impositions from their teachers. Children are capable learners and can make intelligent decisions on how they can learn different concepts. I think speaking and talking with children about their own interest and multiple intelligences can inspired a life of learning and excitement in the classroom. I also had an “aha” moment when Holly Korbey said that when a person has reached mastery at something, their creative seems to be locked and its is time to move to something new. I think many times in our teaching, we are so concern with the drills that we oversee the fact that children are craving new discoveries and new learning. As a classroom teacher, I work hard everyday to allow creative to enter my classroom and inspired students to take responsibility and make decisions abou their own learning because I wish I could have had the same opportunities. I also have a 3rd grader, who feels very bored in school because most of his work is seat and drill/kill work therefore, I can see how this lack of creativity for his learning is at a pause. I try really hard to give my students choices to show and take responsibility for their learning rather than demand a worksheet. I hope that more and more teachers realized that our children are growing up in the 21st century and need more and more chances and time to show their creative mind and the nature of their learning in many different ways inside and outside of the classroom.

  • T Fischer

    “Kurt Wootton, co-author of A Reason to Read. “In my view, the repetition must not come before allowing students to participate in the creative tasks, but rather repeated practice walks side-by-side with the creative process.””

    I find this statement to “hit the nail on the head” as the debate between rote memory and creative “aha” moments continue. The analogy of the musician practicing for hours playing scales as well as note for note renditions of other’s work is appropriate to this discussion. The book, “Outliers”,by Malcolm Gladwell, addresses the 10,000 hour rule. To paraphrase; To become world class at anything, it takes 10,000 hours of focused practice. The author’s examples range from Bill Gates to The Beatles. When two sides are set up as an US vs THEM debate, it misses the oppoprtunity to combine perfect practice with creative inspiration. Putting together a perfect meal is based on proper choices of various food combinations. Putting together a perfect learning environment is very similar in that a combination of repetitive learning and creative opportunity helps the learning as well as creative process.

    • Holly Korbey

      Wow, that was exactly what I ended up with after I finished interviewing all of these experts — both ways work really well when used in the appropriate measurement/combination!

  • the problem with these ideas and theories is that “creativity” is a suitcase word–a word that, like “consciousness” and “intelligence”, is overloaded with many very different meanings. Nearly every time “creativity” is used in the article above, it means something different.

    I’m not suggesting we need to come up with a suitable definition for creativity–that would be artificial and could leave us in a mental straightjacket. Instead I’d encourage the authors to unpack this ‘suitcase word’ and break it down into more specific ideas and concepts instead of treating it like some monolithic thing

    • Because “creativity” is sometimes lost in the current classroom environments, we like to focus on it as if it is the answer to everything. The key point is that “creativity” is lost, not that it is better than structured learning activities. In addition, I find that there is so much talk about creativity by itself that it is often implemented with no direction, no followup and no consequences. Being creative in one activity should be celebrated, but mostly as a first step, not as a final step. Iteration is an important part of the process. Without iteration, the world would never have known the genius of Cezanne. By his own words, he admitted that he needed to iterate multiple times on his work in order to see it better, learn from it and improve on it. From my observations and experiences, I think more of us follow an iterative process when creating than just creating greatness on the first pass. Creativity and practice go hand in hand everywhere in life, so we should embrace the blend and teach it as a core method within our schools.

      • “We naturally admire our Einsteins and Beethovens, and wonder if
        computers ever could create such wondrous theories or symphonies. Most
        people think that creativity requires some special, magical “gift” that
        simply cannot be explained. If so, then no computer could create – since
        anything machines can do (most people think can be explained.

        To see what’s wrong with that, we must avoid one naive trap. We mustn’t
        only look at works our culture views as very great, until we first get good
        ideas about how ordinary people do ordinary things. We can’t expect to
        guess, right off, how great composers write great symphonies. I don’t
        believe that there’s much difference between ordinary thought and
        highly creative thought. I don’t blame anyone for not being able to do
        everything the most creative people do. I don’t blame them for not being
        able to explain it, either. I do object to the idea that, just because we can’t
        explain it now, then no one ever could imagine how creativity works.

        We shouldn’t intimidate ourselves by our admiration of our Beethovens
        and Einsteins. Instead, we ought to be annoyed by our ignorance of how
        we get ideas – and not just our “creative” ones. Were so accustomed to the
        marvels of the unusual that we forget how little we know about the
        marvels of ordinary thinking. Perhaps our superstitions about creativity
        serve some other needs, such as supplying us with heroes with such
        special qualities that, somehow, our deficiencies seem more excusable.

        Do outstanding minds differ from ordinary minds in any special way? I
        don’t believe that there is anything basically different in a genius, except
        for having an unusual combination of abilities, none very special by
        itself. There must be some intense concern with some subject, but that’s
        common enough. There also must be great proficiency in that subject;
        this, too, is not so rare; we call it craftsmanship. There has to be enough
        self-confidence to stand against the scorn of peers; alone, we call that
        stubbornness. And certainly, there must be common sense. As I see it, any
        ordinary person who can understand an ordinary conversation has
        already in his head most of what our heroes have. So, why can’t
        “ordinary, common sense” – when better balanced and more fiercely
        motivated – make anyone a genius,”

  • Pingback: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it | develAper()

  • Pingback: Can Repetitive Exercises Actually Feed the Creative Process? | art and math()

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor