Dr. Matthew Warwood:
Hello and welcome to a debrief episode of the Fueling Creativity in education podcast, our third debrief of season 11, where we will be debriefing the future of gifted ed, repurposing technology for creative teaching, and the future of work. Hello, everyone. My name is Dr. Matthew Werwood.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
And my name is Dr. Cindy Burnett.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
This is the Fueling Creativity in Education podcast.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
On this podcast, we’ll be talking about various creativity topics and how they relate to the field of education.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
We be talking with scholars, educators, and resident experts about their work, challenges they face, and exploring new perspectives of creativity.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
All with a goal to help fuel a more rich and informed discussion that provides teachers, administrators, and emerging scholars with the information they need to infuse creativity into teaching and learning.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
So let’s begin.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
So, Matt, we have three incredible episodes to debrief. The first one was with Dr. Catherine Little, who talked to us about the future of gifted education. Then we had Punya Mishra, who talked about repurposing technology for creative teaching and learning. And I had a lot of people reach out to me about that episode. And then finally we had Dr. Ronnie Reiter Palman talk about teaching creativity for the future of work. So I think it was really future focused but really exciting stuff and new stuff that we haven’t talked about on the show before.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
Cindy, it really was a great three episodes. And let’s get started with your first debrief. And why don’t we start with Katherine Little?

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
Ooh, yes. So let me look at my notes. So, Katherine Little, the thing that I found most fascinating about what she said around gifted education and the future of gifted education is that we need to do needs based teaching, not labels based approach, meaning that we need to look at the individual student and see what their needs are and then act based on what their needs are. And we need to do that with, with all students, but particularly with the gifted students who, you know, she said, not that life is fair, and she said this, but going into a classroom and feeling like, you know, everything already, it’s not an enriching learning experience. So really making sure that we meet those students where they are so, so that we can enhance their, their intelligence, their creativity and their learning and their love of learning most of all. So I think that was my big insight, is really looking at gifted students from a needs based approach.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
And I suppose, you know, just to follow up on that, we do have needs assessments and ultimately, I suppose we should be doing more of them. But of course, the needs assessments are typically in certain domains and not all of the domains. So I think this is also something that not just the classroom teacher I’m thinking about in the element elementary school. These are kind of things that, you know, those specials teachers need to be thinking about. The music teacher, the art teacher, the gym teacher as well. I don’t know if you’ve got any thoughts about that aspect. When we kind of like go out of the kind of more traditional core subjects.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
Man. I think that’s a really interesting question. And I think that it reminds me of the episode we did with Todd Lubart where he was looking at creative potential in different domains. Because, you know, as we’ve been. As I’ve been writing a chapter for our upcoming book, you know, we can look at creativity across domains or we can look at creativity that is domain specific. So domain general or domain specific. And I think that we spend a lot of time, particularly in high school, trying to get students at this high level or at this certain level of knowledge in different areas. And I don’t know if that’s really what we should be focusing on, especially at the high school level.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
Yes. Elementary school, middle school, we want to get them exposed to lots of different things. But it reminds me of a conversation I just had with your son on Marco Polo where he was talking about physical education and how he didn’t feel like we needed physical education in high school and how he has to join a team sport as part of school. And I said, I think as long as they’re getting some sort of physical activity and they’re engaging in some sort of team activity, whether it be drama or debate club or Science Olympiad, then they should be allowed to do that at. In high school level because, you know, for some students, they don’t have that interest and we could be fostering their potential in other areas. So in the case of your son, who loves theater and dramatics, I would much rather take his passion and interest and his incredible creative potential in that area and really focus in and say, how do we harness that? How do we harness this love of being on stage and performing and not focus on the physical education side? And so I’m curious your perspective. Do you think it would be better if we went in that direction where by high school we allowed kids to focus more in their areas of interest and creative potential?

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
Sydney, it’s really fascinating. I, first of all, my eldest is not being forced to play sports by me. It’s a requirement of the school. But it is something that my wife and I do support. But he has been absolutely Dragging his feet. He’s been complaining to Cindy a lot on Marco Polo about why do I have do this? I know I don’t like it. And so I’ve been talking a little bit about the value I see is that he’s being pushed into something outside his comfort zone. But you’re challenging me to say, but what is the value? And ultimately the bigger question is, should you be doing things that you just detest? I mean, he did test, not just soccer, he detests sports, playing sports.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
So is that a good experience and sticking with him? To a certain extent. And this is, I think, where it’s come up. The experience has been clouding his first semester at high school a little bit because he dislikes it to such an extent. So I would. I think I’m gonna have to say I agree with you. But the challenge within, within this situation is one, not everyone ultimately knows what they want to do. And I certainly know that probably while I had interests and passions and believed I was going to be this and that at 14, 15, around 18, 19, I remember I did quite a strong pivot away from those things and suddenly found myself in a situation saying, wow, look at all these other things I could be. And I remember feeling very free at that moment, like really excited about I could do anything I want right now because I’d been so committed to one area that it to a certain extent had blinded me of other areas that I could pursue.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
So we got to make sure that we don’t. We keep exposing. But to your point, while we accept people kind of know what they want to do, we also acknowledge that they kind of maybe know what they don’t want to do around this, this transitional, this. This emerging adult period. It’s the point of when it happens. And the extent to which it happens is really probably part of the larger conversation. So I’m leaning towards you with the. But we need to kind of work this out well and make sure that it doesn’t have too much of a long term impact if.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
For those who are still finding their way. Yeah.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
So did you have an insight on Katherine Little’s episode?

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
I suddenly found myself wondering, do we need to start identifying talent and giftedness and actually creating a talented and gifted program within some majors at universities?

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
Hmm. So what does that look like?

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
You know, I am kind of like somewhat cautious. I’ve thought a little bit about it, but we have a lot of students, and some of those students are kind of exploring the major, and they probably have incredible potential in that major. Yes. But I think other times there are students in the major that are just absolutely brilliant. And I know we have honors classes and we have honors classes in the major, but how well are we really promoting those classes, encouraging students to pursue those classes? And to what extent have we got to a point where we’re becoming so specialized in everything that I still think that the honours education is quite generalized. Is there an opportunity for there to be these more gifted centric programs at university? Even as I’m speaking now, though, I’m now contradicting myself. I suppose there is honours in the major, but ultimately my takeaway is how much are we really optimizing these honours in the major programs? And to what extent do we actually see them as really opportunities for gifted students to excel?

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
But don’t you think that emerges in things like research? And I mean, you have a talented student in your class and you say let’s talk after class and let’s see how we might get you an internship or conduct some research or expand your knowledge beyond the walls of this classroom.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
I think ultimately this is obviously an idea that’s still, you know, in my mind and there’s probably some elements about it that I’m not super comfortable sharing yet. But I just feel that at times the system doesn’t always push and challenge particular students as well as it should do. And to that point there’s the mentorship piece and I think the program should be part of that mentorship. If there’s super talent within the major, how are we looking after that super talent at the university level? And, and as I said, I think my. The key point is, I think primarily it’s within these honors programs, but I’m just wondering if, if maybe individual majors should be thinking a little bit more. I mean, obviously, you know, like I’m from a design major, right? So we have portfolios and ideally we’re bringing in talent. But still within that there’s a lot of differentiated talent. And I.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
And every student gets the same class. And there are times in terms of needs assessments, there are times you’re looking at and you’re like, this student is breezing through this class and they probably need to be challenged more. And yes, some individual instructors may or may not challenge them further, but there’s so many other things that’s happening at the undergraduate level that might to a certain extent distract that talent. And you know, those things, some of those things might be really positive stuff. But I’m just wondering if within the major, if you identify talent, it might be that they skip A couple of classes. It might be that there are enrichment like the major’s already established. Let’s just take Design 101 class. If you identify a really talented student, there is an enrichment activity built into that semester that almost like when you do honors conversions for courses, but that student’s identified as needing those enrichment activities every single class.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
So even though they’re required to take the same classes as every single student, there’s actually enrichment activities built into that, those classes for these individual students. So as I said, it’s a little bit of the honors, but it’s more geared toward everything that we’re applying at the gifted and talented area in the kind of more elementary to middle school to try to just keep that going at the university level.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
I really like the idea of being able to go to a college professor, a student being able to go to a college professor and say, here’s all the things that I can demonstrate that I’ve already learned the content in this course. Can I take another course? Right. I know for my son who is, as you know, applying to colleges right now that one of his concerns is like, am I going to be. He wants to be a math major, computer science or engineering. And one of his concerns is he knows a lot of math. Like if he looks at a typical college curriculum on math, he knows all that content. So his concern is he’s going to be, you know, in classes where he’s not really being challenged. And so.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
So I think being able to go and say here’s my portfolio that showcases how I know this, or here’s a test that in the case of math, you could take a test to say I know all this content already. Can I move into something else? Can I do an independent study that looks at the relationship between mathematics and desmos? Can, you know, like looking beyond just your standard curriculum. But then it gets my concern around that and I guess I’ll frame it as a how to is how might we build in faculty or staff time to be able to do those sorts of things? Because as you know, those one on one, that one on one coaching takes a lot more time. And especially if you’ve got a class of 200 students or 100 students, how do you manage it? When students come to you and say I want more? And will they come to you and say I want more?

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
I think what you just said there is actually a good summary of the problem that I’m trying to address. So your son, 200 seat math class entering the university, still getting known by the faculty and peers, and he may be in some math classes for the next couple of semesters with 200 students, it’s very difficult for him to be noticed, and he’s going to find it potentially. You know, I’m not engaged here. It’s a little bit easy. So. So what is then the consequence of that experience for him, and what could he be doing other than that? And as you just said, the idea of an individual faculty identifying two or three students and in the moment responding to their needs, I believe we do and try to do that, but obviously there’s limitations. And that’s why I’m thinking if you have this. This kind of talent and gifted piece, which is slightly different perhaps than the honors piece, that talented gifted piece, there’s enrichment activities, particularly for that student, that’s already built into the experience.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
Love this conversation. And not something that I thought about. So thanks for bringing that up. Matt. Let’s talk about your. I know you were really excited about interviewing Dr. Punya Mishra. So what was your big insight when we walked away from that conversation?

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
So. So much. I mean, the background was that I. I’m, you know, I’m an. Not. I’m younger than I am now, and I’m doing my doctorate degree and I’m going in there and I’m like, I’ve had like 10 years of experience with technology and education technology. And, you know, the most important thing that I’ve always been doing is as new technology came out, the center for 21st century skills, where we’re immediately exploring that technology and saying, right. How.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
How can it fit into the. The traditional classroom environment and learning experience? And. And ultimately from years of doing that, I probably developed these skills around designing these learning experiences centered on new technology. So then I get into creativity and I go to. To study my dissertation and I just run. You know, I think I’m kind of like, as you do, you think, like, you’re the first one to think about this stuff. And I start reading, you know, Mishra’s work, and I’m like, wow, this is this. To the extent.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
I’m like, oh, my God, like, literally the exact sentences that are in my head, I’m reading on the paper, and I’m like, wait, wait. So that it was the first realization that what you think is new. Actually, when you start doing your research, realize there’s actually already a pretty significant breadth of research around that. But I think ultimately that the takeaway isn’t necessarily a new takeaway for me, but it was allowing me to revisit this wonderful notion that quite often technology that we’re having to adopt, technology that is disrupting our learning environment, we as educators are the ones that ultimately are in a position to determine the way in which it interacts with our learning experiences. At least we should be doing that. And I should rephrase that. Formal learning experiences, because ultimately it’s impacting and influencing the learning experiences outside our classroom. But that requires a lot of creativity on our part, number one.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
And we can see that these technology companies to a certain extent don’t care about, you know, they create something, release, chat, GPT, open it, and it’s like, hey, we’re not, we don’t care about the impact on educators. It’s up to the educating community to adapt to this technology. Okay, maybe that, that, that’s right. But the, the creativity involved in that is really, really important. And of course, you can’t ignore when something like AI comes about. You’ve now got to go and engage with the technology, understand how students are using it, and then think about how you can repurpose the technology for your classroom. And we’ve been doing that for so many years. And, and for someone who had that background education technology, that there was an Apple distinguished educator and interacted with so many, you know, amazing educators doing incredible things with technology, sometimes perhaps a little bit too much technology focused and not focused on the learning objectives.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
But I really have always seen it as a creative act. And so, you know, the one thing that I think Mishra added in our conversation, which I think is obvious and probably I thought about at times, but didn’t really think about it from it from a, a critical concern was that the more we design technology specific to the classroom environment, the more we may hinder that type of creativity that I’ve just spoken about. So if we just take AI, for example, and we’ve got all these, we assume, right. Let’s just assume in five years time we’ve got all these different AI bots that have specifically been created to do all the things that we want. You know, student assistance. Helping with my assessment. Now, it’s like a tool that has designed for a particular purpose and you deploy it exactly in the way it’s been designed from perspective. I’m now standing up a little bit.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
I’m not engaging my creative thinking in that. I’m not necessarily questioning the technology in that situation, and I certainly am not overthinking the potential harm that it may have my experience, I’m literally just deploying in the way I’ve been told to deploy it in the same way we deploy lesson plans, sometimes in the way we’ve been taught to deploy it. And that’s concerning. That worries me a little bit from the impact that may have on learning, particularly with technology companies who aren’t always conducting the research they should be conducting to fully understand and appreciate how that platform is hindering or supporting learning. But then from the other perspective of it, it’s just that potential impact on the creativity of educators because we’ve seen so much creativity with technology. And I hope that doesn’t go away. So I think that’s. But that was my takeaway, and it’s actually now becoming quite a concern for me.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
And I had the same takeaway, Matt. I think for me, I’m not as immersed in technology as you are, but I was thinking as well about the teacher agency piece and how important it is to have teacher agency. On the flip side of that, I was also thinking about we do this with lessons as well. I mean, there are educators that just get sort of boxed lessons that say, okay, here’s what you do, here’s what you say, and making sure you know that when the administrator walks down the hallway, everyone’s on the same page. And it takes away of that wonderful spirit and joy. And it’s funny because I’m writing about joy in the classroom right now and how teachers can bring joy into the classroom in that moment of, like, spontaneity and not knowing what’s going to happen. And all of a sudden something happens and you just go with it. And I think when the same is true with these technology areas where it’s sort of prescriptive, here you go.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
Implement in the classroom, teachers don’t really think about it. They do it as they’re told. They bring it in. And there’s no teacher creativity on that, as you mentioned. Or there might be a little bit, or teachers might have to find it or they might use it. And then the administrators say, well, that’s not how you’re supposed to use it. So that’s the other. Watch out.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
At the same time as I, as I agree with you on all that, I also wonder if there are tools that have been shown to be effective with students. Okay, now I know he mentioned Khan Academy. So I’m going to give you. Okay, I’m going to give you a funny example. So my daughter, as I mentioned earlier, doesn’t really like math and she has a teacher and he’s teaching her. But when we were talking with her about it, she said, I actually learned how to do it from TikTok. It was much more clear than when I learned it from him. So sometimes I feel like teachers who are well meaning may not be able to get their point across.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
So if there are these tools that students can use to help learn information and have that feedback on, say like an AI tutor bottle. Right. That might be more helpful than just sitting at stuff and, or listening to a teacher who’s not really engaging them.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
It’s a really good point and it’s something we should clarify. There are absolutely technology applications. Let’s take math, for example. We know that there are some very effective math programs that have been developed that provide, you know, great from remedial practice, for example, where we actually can see it, it provides good, great data. The experience can bring in some gamification elements as well. And if and for teachers deploying station rotation models, for example, you can have six, seven students working on these math apps doing remedial practice while you’re perhaps working with other learners with other needs. So there absolutely are technology platforms that have been designed and they can be really, really effective addressing the problem that they’ve been designed to address. So I think it’s important that you do clarify that.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
And I also, you know, if teachers do find those things effective in certain ways, then they can use their creativity for other ways. And I think the most important thing to emphasize is teachers need to find the way that they want to use their creativity in effective ways. I mean, tomorrow or two days from now, we’re going to be doing a session on, you know, the creativity of the educator. And so I really think that teachers need to look within themselves to think about is my creativity going to shine in designing a curriculum or writing a lesson or running the class or modeling creative behaviors and all of those things that we’ve been talking about in this podcast for five seasons. So it, so I think it’s a yes.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
And it is. It is. And I do want to. And just before we finish and distinguish and ultimately, I think what’s. What you’re helping me clarify is that we maintain the balance between these technology specific applications and also making sure we don’t close the door entirely on general purpose technologies, which while they have their problems, they also provide the freedom to which students and teachers can explore best practices on how to use them and support their learning. So, Cindy, our final takeaway is with Dr. Ronnie Polman. You were really determined to get Ronnie on the show.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
We managed to get her on the show. What was your takeaway?

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
I think my biggest Takeaway was when she was talking about AI and AI producing middle of the road solutions because it wasn’t something, I mean, I know that, I know that AI produces middle of the road solutions because that’s what large language models do, predictive text. But I also, you know, it made me think about students in the classroom and what we’re preparing them for. So when do they use AI? When is it okay to use AI? When do they need to just find middle average solution to a problem and that they can use AI? And when do they really need their creativity to really bring in their authentic self to do that deep learning that we want for them. So not even thinking about it as like AI is your partner or your co pilot or whatever we want to call it, you know, AI, but really thinking about it as when you need middle, middle of the road solutions, AI will give it to you. But if you want creative solutions, truly creative, then you need to bring your own expertise to that and really evaluate it. And I think that’s one of the things that we need to really be focusing on with children. And when I say children like high school students, because I don’t think it should be used with like elementary school students.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
Well, one I think you bring up a point is that we’re still working out when is the best time to bring that in. And we touch on that very slightly in our, actually our first episode next week after this. But you know, ultimately a big part of the conversation was this problem finding and solution finding aspect or idea validation. And I think that that’s where your expertise comes in. And that was a big topic of the conversation. But I think just listening to how you phrase that and what you’re getting me to recognize is that look, there’s gotta be times in the same way that Google has been effective for us, right? And all of us probably listen to the show now, can think about how many YouTube videos we’ve watched to, to address an issue at home or whatever, but also potentially get inspired for birthday parties or what gifts to buy loved ones or how to plan a bachelorette weekend or a wedding. You know, all of this falls to that everyday creativity. And I think that we can see AI as an incredible tool that can ultimately boost our productivity and creative and creativity in these circumstances.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
But that’s, that’s where we have to also be careful about not being over dependent on it because there are also these higher levels of creativity which ultimately it’s a big part of our, our forthcoming book around the Future Creative and what we’re presenting what we did present at nagc, and. And we kind of need to make sure that we get folks who have the capacity to, in essence, generate things that haven’t been generated before that, that transformational, radical forms of creation, creativity. And I think it comes down to first identifying the limitations of AI technology today and making sure that we are successfully teaching that and making everybody aware of it, because I don’t. I think people talk about it, but if they fully understand the limitations. Because quite often when you’re interacting with this tool, oneonone, you’re judging all these ideas, and you don’t really have the expertise or knowledge to realize that they’re not actually radical forms of creativity. They’re kind of like radical for you, but in the larger world they’re not. So what’s fascinating is in a classroom environment, as students are interacting with them, they are gonna be like, oh, that’s a great idea. That’s a great idea.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
That’s a great idea. When they transition into the real world, though, and they’re in an area, you know, of expertise, the ideas they’re getting from AI may not be as. As radical as they once thought they were. And so we’ve got to find a way somehow of kind of teaching that while they’re in this space where they are seeing as being super radical. Does that make sense? And I think that poses quite a significant challenge because I think it’s also teachers that sometimes are looking at this and seeing radical ideas. This is radical. This is amazing. But actually, is it, you know, do you really know if it is or isn’t? And that’s hard.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
I’m finding it hard to teach this concept right now for the real world, because it’s almost like in the classroom, what’s happening in the classroom is one context, and the professional environment is another context. And they’re actually in this particular situation. How we’re interacting with AI needs to be quite different. And I don’t know how we teach, you know, prepare for the other.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
No, I don’t know how we prepare either. And I think your point of like, oh, this is a great idea. I mean, I can’t tell you how many times that it spouted something out to me, and I’m like, oh, my gosh, look at this. And I think it’s a great synthesizer. And you know, what it reminds me of is our conversation with Howard Gardner, who talked about the synthesizing mind, because essentially that’s what it does for us. I don’t think AI is, you know, as creative as humans can be. But I do think it’s incredibly. I mean, it’s an incredible synthesizer.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
So synthesize this information for me. Take these two concepts, put them together. I think it can synthesize things in. In ways that are creative. And sometimes, you know, I’ll ask it for some recommendations for, you know, a chapter title that I’m. I’m struggling through, and it will give me a bunch of things. And I’m like, no, no. Yes, I like this word.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
I like that word. But it’s us up to us to take it to that next level. And I think that’s really what I walked away with is, you know, using it as a baseline for average work. But when you want to do exceptional work, it needs to come with your human hard work and mind. So what was your takeaway on that episode?

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
You know, I. I mean, I feel like this. This conversation has been so much more exciting than what I’m bringing. But it’s all part of that process. But Ronnie, Ronnie, just reminding us that, you know, divergent thinking, I think, am I right in thinking she phrased it Divergent thinking isn’t necessarily creative thinking. Does she phrase it a lot like that? And just reminding us that, like, you know, hey, you can go and get really good at generating lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of ideas, and you can go and accelerate how wild and wacky they are and. But, you know, I, I want to do this justice and, and not kind of like, paraphrase too much, but I felt like the, the takeaway is. But that doesn’t mean that these ideas are going to lead to creativity.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
Right?

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
And so it’s a reminder of us all, the complexity of creativity and how important context is, and again, how important our knowledge and expertise is when it comes to identifying the most appropriate idea to select. And as you’ve just been referencing AI, now we’ve got the ability to generate lots and lots and lots of ideas. I feel like the latter part is now what all of us as creativity advocates need to be focusing more on.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
Right? And building on that. What you said about divergent and convergent thinking, I remember she said convergent thinking first. And I don’t know if she said that deliberately or intentionally. Like convergent think, convergent thinking, divergent thinking. But it always makes me uncomfortable because I think you can’t converge unless you’ve diverged. But it also had me. And I don’t know if you remember that point of the interview where I was like, wait, are you saying converge? Like, you could Converge before you diverge. Like you just go back and forth.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
And so I was thinking as we walked away from that episode about the convergent thinking. And are there times when we converge and then we diverge?

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
Well, well, I think my, my take of that is ultimately there is a problem. So there’s a lot of. It was around that problem finding aspect. So when we begin any type of, of crate creative methodology, we have that definition stage. But before that, we’ve obviously accepted some type of problem, we’ve identified some type of problem. And I think that was that concept of we start with converging because we. There’s lots of problems we could have taken on as a human being, our work environment, but for one reason, something is converging our lives for us to focus on this one. And that was my, that was my piece.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
But. But it hadn’t been phrased like that before. And then from there you go to divergent thinking. So that was my take. And I think it’s a very interesting way of looking at it.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
Yeah. And that’s not something I had thought about before, especially, you know, in teaching creative problem solving for all those years thinking about, okay, divergent, convergent. And then it was like, convergent, divergent. Wait a second. And then just the way you explained it now, I think it makes a lot of sense.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
So I. Cindy, I gotta say, I really. I mean, I knew we had three great episodes, so I knew this is gonna be a great debut. I really enjoyed this conversation.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
It was a great conversation today and I can’t wait. We’re going to NEGC and we’ll get to see some of our listeners and some of the people we’ve interviewed on the show. So we’ll have to do a little. We’re going to do a few live episodes, I think. So if you’re not following us on YouTube or Instagram, go and find us and you can watch some of our very. We’re going to do some quick interviews with some of the poster sessions to learn more about what’s happening in the field of creativity and gifted education.

Dr. Matthew Warwood:
And don’t forget to subscribe to our Extra newsletter, which is Extra Fuel. And you can find that on the fuelingcreativitypodcast.com website. My name is Dr. Matthew Werwood.

Dr. Cindy Burnett:
And my name is Dr. Cindy Burnett. This episode was produced by Cindy Burnett and Matthew Worwood. Our podcast assistant is Anne Fernando and. And our editor is Sheikh Ahmed.