This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Schools do not kill creativity
I didn't like the thesis in this talk by Sir Robinson. In my opinion, creativity develops on the soil of knowledge. Knowledge is the food that we get in schools. Food should be given in an organized manner and in the order of importance. And comparing dance class with mathematics, in my view, was completely rubbish. I wonder if I could ever get to use a computer if people of history spent their time dancing away.
Topics:
education
Disha Kote
Original thinking is not something that can be silenced over the years .
Schools simply direct creativity , not kill it .
Learning the fundamentals of math or science or even dance forms, provides the knowledge that a student would need, to be creative with .
Lucritus Wiart
Adam Sid
Mitch SMith 50+
Your language demonstrates a desire to force others to comply to your world view.
This is common amongst the young who have not enough experience to reveal the ultimate negative outcomes of force.
I simply ask you to put aside your aggresion for a moment and consider more observation to expand your world view.
Joshua Moncrieff
Take ballet for example; as you correctly stated, the 'prerequisite' is the muscle memory and kinetic language learnt at the barre. But unlike the teaching of many 'non-artistic' subjects, a dancer is encouraged to explore beyond the rules. Now I'm not saying that a good teacher doesn't inspire his/her students to do the same in other disciplines, but it seems that the trend is toward exclusivity of focus. A Modern Dance or Jazz Dance teacher expects a student to draw from ballet (as does a physics teacher expect their students to draw from mathematics), but the conversation stretches beyond that. A dance student isn't often left wondering whether they're allowed to break the rules of formal technique (so long as they're aware of why they're doing so), but I find this freedom somewhat lacking in traditional education.
Statistics made sense AFTER calculus, but was taught before it. Organic Chemistry made sense AFTER Bio Chemistry, but again taught before it. I strongly feel that the underlying principles of most, if not all subjects can be better comprehended when paired with a more generous serving of things to come. It's all part of the greater system, so why share it? It's the ignition of interest and exploration that I believe sparks the motivation to understand, and that's really REALLY hard to do when the microscope is so often set to such an exclusively high level of magnification.
peter lindsay 30+
As to why scientists juggle but don't dance, maybe its our introverted nature. You can learn to juggle alone in your room, not many of us have a room big enough to really dance in :-)
Yubal Masalker 200+
IMO, you mix up things. Ken Robinson did not say dance can replace mathematics, nor he compared them. He just gave an example showing how a child can fail in studies, suppose mathematics, but still can be very successful in completely different other matters, suppose dance. What he meant so show that schools are very limited in the scope of their teachings. They do not encompass all the aspects of life, nor even all the possible knowledge & talents a human being can possess. Schools do not and cannot cope with all the human talents and abilities. And this is why, it is wrong to expect from ALL the children to succeed in the limited scope of faculties of knowledge which schools try to convey to them, because that limited scope might not include those faculties in which some children might possess inborn talents. And also it is wrong to label those who do not succeed in schools’ the limited scope , as failures.
Gurinder Ahluwalia 10+
Larissa Bogdanova
If the creativity of an individual seems to be undeveloped to the full degree it means only this individual has another feature developed in full degree.So it is rather important for schools to have teachers with different features unfolded in sufficient measure so that students might discover variety of opportunities.
Bruno Carre
I strongly (and amicably) disagree with you.
It is very true what you say, you can not create if you don't have knowledge. But knowledge doesn't beget creativity.
Billions of people went to school and college DO have knowledge.
BUT are they creative...???? NO!
It really depends on the definition of being "creative".
I like the definition of creative by Ken Robinson: something original that has VALUE (at a given time).
What he meant by comparing dance classes with math classes: it is a CALLING.
Some kids do well in maths, some don't. Are the kids who don't NOT creative? NO, it is all about finding your CALLING.
Some kids will never do well in calculus, but they will be gifted for other subjects (such as dance). And, given the opportunity (which is rare!) they will THRIVE in doing what they were meant to do.
What Ken Robinson basically says is the following: A kid, from 6-year old to 18 year-old (at least, unless he or she goes to college) is trained NOT to fail, which is the exactly OPPOSITE of "trying". Because innovation is not a 1 try/1hit kind of thing, it is a 1000 tries/1 hit.
Graham Bell wanted to create a device so that his deaf son could hear when people spoke. Instead, he created the telephone.
Pfizer wanted to create a medicine for the people with heart problems. Instead, they created the VIagra.
3M create the Post-It because of a glue mistake.
See...Trying (and having the guts to do so) begets innovation. They were prepared to be wrong.
While the school system as we know it "teaches" us to:
- follow rules
- not to FAIL (if you fail, you are punished!)
The school system doesn't encourage us to TRY. And "try" is the exact opposite of "follow-not-to-fail".
What Ken Robinson says it that the schools do not allow children who do not fit in the current educational mould to find their calling. And we need these callings to answer tomorrow's HUGE challenges
Hope this helps :-)
Comment deleted
Joshua Moncrieff
I'm also a dancer, and I've enjoyed the similarities between juggling and dance for as long as I've been doing both.
It's the similarity between the two activities that I find most interesting when considering the hierarchy of education. They're both forms of movement, and yet so many more 'scientists' seem to juggle than dance. Could this be the result of perceived acceptability that Sir Robinson touches on?
It's great to see a living example that can attest to the beneficial crossover between dance and math such as yourself. Keep on movin'.
peter lindsay 30+
I too am a juggler and a musician and a physics teacher but not a dancer. And I assure you, you do have a talent for numbers as if you don't have the ability to recognise number patterns and multiply and divide in your head you can't dance. How many beats are there in 8 bars of 12/8?
Sharon Lindeman
You both seem to be much more adept in your crossovers whether they be from juggling to dance to science. Keep on juggling!
Alvaro Andreu
What I believe needs to be done is to change the underlaying reason for educating our minds, which is simply inheriting knowledge from our predecessors and taking it further. Kids need a goal for what they are doing. They need to be interested and capable of developing concepts even if they are wrong.
It is then! when you can teach them yesterday's knowledge. A little kid doesn't have the mindset to pay attention because he knows it will one day be useful, he is not a university or a PhD student.
Develop their minds if you want them to innovate. Change must always come from the inside, and our education must be as fluid as possible to allow this
Tarik Guney
In this regard, schools might be important to get the knowledge. But excepting everything from schools would be wrong. If we need something to blame, our social environment must be one of them.We should question how people approach creative ideas? They see you as insane, lunatic and loon person when you come up with an idea that looks weird to others?
I believe we teach our kids to accept more knowledge less creativity from schools because creativity is something the students discover instead of excepting it from school and teachers. Knowledge help individuals to make more connections with other neurons and they will be able to evaluate the situation better.
You cannot just expect students to be creative by letting them go to the forest and live there :)
Richard Corlett
I quite agree that we may never have had computers if everyone way busy "dancing away" but I do not think that obligatory arts is what Ken was advocating. The message that I got from his talk was that we should build on our children's strengths, not seeking to mold them to a preset design. We should be thriving on our differences and schools should be fueling enthusiasm not stifling it. The problem in the western world and especially in Britain is that there has now become a set path through life; we are born, we go to school, we get the grades and go to university. Those who stray from that path or are unable to keep pace are ridiculed and left behind. Unless they have the mentality to forge their own way then they are stuck.
E G 10+
Tracy Till 50+
indira priya darshini
Vincent Brandon
The leap is in understanding the "organized" manner in which information is passed on. Sir Robinson was talking about the evolution of systems, the industrialized monopoly of educational organizations. It's not that systematically giving people knowledge is wrong, quite the opposite. But, whenever our schools aren't allowed to compete, or competing notions about how best to deliver information throughout the course of a child's life aren't given the resources to be vetted, we as a species lose out on innovative ways to learn.
Industrialized education, by definition, won't work equally for everyone learning different things. The problem is the disparity in effective graduation - people becoming experts in fields we need and fields they excel in. There's a kind of fear permeating academia that being environmentally disposed or genetically adept at certain tasks is an evil concept, though it's undoubtedly true. Since we can't reliably predict individual performance, though, we aren't developing innovative ways of teaching individuals - we focus on ubiquitous access to a stagnant system with evolving demands - the disconnect between demands of our graduates and failure of school systems to evolve leaves children further and further behind the needs of the day.
peter lindsay 30+
2) Professors are only held in high regard by people outside academia. You only accept a professorship to enable your research if there is no alternative. Career professors are those that have failed to come up with a good research topic.
3) If you do a bit of research into professional musicians you find many of them have degrees in the most unexpected areas. There are doctors and lawyers and physics teachers and accountants.
I am a highschool physics teacher who works as a musician at night.for example.
Ken's lack of science Knowledge is why he doesn't see the creativity required to come up with a new scientific theory.
Maey Salahuldeen
Joshua Moncrieff
I absolutely agree with your understanding of the relationship between knowledge and creativity, but failing to develop both through explorations/disciplines amenable to each can and does seem to result in the neglect of one or the other (and, as Sir Robinson points out, it's almost always the development of an educational institution's conception of 'knowledge' that comes out on top).
george lockwood 20+
teachers? Who are the students? Consider aptitude, personalities, and intellignce of everyone.
We can junp from Jung, Myers-briggs,etc. to IQ tests. In addition, we have the enironment of
the class tge school or whatever. We now have the suggestion that a major Presidential
candidate in the US was a bully in school. Where does this lead? Wonderland if we're not careful,
more student oriented schools if need be, and greater respect for self-learning. Lincoln, Rominujin,
and George Romnry, Tom Edison, and Tesla might find today's world a problem.
Stuart Woods 10+
I find the comments on this debate interesting (not least your recommended link to the Sugata Mitra film- thanks for that). I have Ken's paradigm on a mural in my office at work! I disagree with you and believe that ALL subjects can be compared for their central learning elements. Learning in schools today should not simply defined by the subject title on the child's timetable. I work at a school where Dance is hugely valued and where our students don't 'dance away' they learn the complexities such as numeracy within rhythm, meaning in movement, narrative and literacy in interpretation. We have two (amongst others) amazing Maths and Dance teachers, they are creative and both see the crossovers of their subjects. They collaborate, spot similarities and so create inspirational experiences for children as a result, many children for whom, Dance (or indeed any art form) is the reason they enjoy school and can be where they get their best grades. Achievement takes many forms. Great schools understand that creativity is everywhere (evident in all subjects where teaching is of high quality) and debating the rank order of subjects is ultimately counter-productive.
Prasil Koirala
"Creativity is everywhere". Thanks for that awesome thought.
But still, I believe, giving example of dancing, arts has quite limited amount of knowledge to offer. We can use that knowledge to develop our personality, and to some extent - our Creativity. But Science is vast - and we cannot deny the fact that we advanced throughout the history because we used Science. We are creative because we are Scientific.
It's just what was in my view, I didn't mean to nitpick Arts and overshadow its wonders.
Adam Cross
Genevieve Tran 50+
But, I also became a teacher and recognized that not all students learn like I did (and probably like you do). I'm not sure what percentage, but many students too quickly stay in a box once you tell them: "this is how it's done; this is the "right" way to do it". Some subjects like math and language syntax cannot escape structure, but certainly so many other subjects need to be taught with open-endedness. Some kids cannot learn sitting in a chair!
Including Dance in school, literally, or as a figurative idea for engagement of more body parts and senses has been scientifically proven to help learning. So, that's Science supporting "Dance" / different sensory usage for better education in research!
Derek Young 30+
I am going to focus on your comment, "Food should be given in an organized manner and in the order of importance". I am not sure that food is always given in an organized manner, and I'm not sure everyone has the luxuries of eating a meal in regular intervals. Same as education, when contrasted with your comment about food. The world needs to have enough food to feed everyone before everyone can be educated. The incapacity for everyone to have access to food is causing everyone to pick and choose different paths in their lives. Some paths are easily accessible and others are obscure, but we must all recognize these different paths. These paths must get recognition in order for the individuals' to understand if their path is right for them. Food isn't always eaten in an orderly fashion, like when we get ourselves/others gifts of candy or small meals during long nights studying. Most people don't get the same amount of food, especially in large and low-income families. Education works just the same way. Not everyone can afford to get the same education and if everyone developed more creativity, then education would already have half of its work done. Maybe we should focus on getting food to everyone and make all forms of education be accessible to everyone, then we can forward our complaints about our personal beliefs of a faulty idea. Health usually comes before many other issues, or is my comment a bit overrated?
ps: Sorry if my passion leaks through the internet as being a bit cold hearted. Not meant to be an attack.
Thanks for reading my thoughts. Hope to read yours. =)
Jim Moonan 30+
What I believe will eventually become standard in education will be individual educational plans. Technology will facilitate that happening and we will be off to the races....
Derek Young 30+
Bharath Kumar Kunjibettu 10+
I too have mixed opinion on the same , its not that a school/university that want to kill create an individual's intellectual ability. It is simply the syllabus prescribed by an education board or an education system that sometimes kill creativity of the student.
I personally wanted to do Clinical Psychology but I took up a technical analyst role in IT but it was somewhere related to analyzing data instead of human beings and I still love that work. Music too is one of hobbies. So we must be open to the knowledge available all over the globe and not just stick to one area of interest.
Cheers,
Bharath
Jim Moonan 30+
pat gilbert 50+
Scott Armstrong 50+
That and meddling bureaucrats. We would have the perfect school systems if it wasn't for all those meddling bureaucrats..
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
i mean, look at the numbers. to be successful in the west, you have to study 15-17 years. this is a huge amount of time, and at the end, you are usually not well equipped to be a useful workforce, you need to study more on your own. this is a horrendous waste of time.
edward long 100+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_the_child_driven_education.html
edward long 100+
Mohammad Mohammadipour
Years ago when I was younger, I have read some where: "creativity means being wrong."
In your educational system, do they let you to cross the red lines?
Can you shed light on strict repetitive behaviors? What about the educational assessment system?
i think, We should adorn those teachers who teach how to think and not merely thoughts…
Regards
Prasil Koirala