Here is an interesting post I found this morning via Twitter. If you have read this blog at all, you know how much I love Ken Robinson and his call for revolutionizing education.
This post questions his evidence and ideas. And though I'm still solidly on Robinson's side when it comes to believing education tends to kill creativity in the name of conformity, I still think it's good to question and challenge. And this article does a good job of that, though I personally think it falls prey to a lot of what it blames Robinson for. I'll highlight that later.
The main focus of this post is on Robinson's iconic initial TED Talk called "How Schools Kill Creativity." (I'm not even going to link to it. If you haven't seen it, what have you been doing? Lecturing and giving notes and Scantron tests I suspect).
But I would urge the author to remember that it is an 18 minute TED Talk. It's not a three hour symposium at Harvard or Oxford. As any entertaining speaker knows, anecdotes and stories are vital, not hard data. So he does sprinkle in narratives to engage the audience.
And the author of the blog posts challenges Robinson's research, mostly from the non-vital narratives that he uses as jokes.
Here is what the author of the blog challenges Robinson on -
1. Talent, creativity and intelligence are not innate, but come through practice.
I disagree with the author here. I believe talent, creativity, and intelligence ARE innate. But I think practice is vital too.
If you don't think talent, creativity, and intelligent are innate, spend a day with children under the age of 10. You'll see all kinds of talent, creativity, and intelligence.
I see this in my own children as I type this.
I saw this in my step-daughter, who since the age of four had a sketch book and pencil by her side continuously.
I am living proof of this. I have stories I devised (that my grandmother and mother fortunately kept for me) when I was first learning to write. I kept that love for writing alive throughout my adolescence when I wrote songs and poetry and a few short stories. I had that talent nurtured by my amazing 9th grade English teacher. Then I had it nourished again and again in college and grad school. And now I'm still writing and creating.
I don't see how you could possibly argue that talent, creativity, and intelligence are not innate from birth and amplified during childhood.
Yet, I think it's absolutely vital to teach kids the diligence, or as Vidal Sassoon puts it in Robinson's book, The Element, "the inconvenience of discipline," or grit.
Personally, I see the key being cultivating talent, creativity, and intelligence through the middle school and high school years so students can fall in love with a talent or creative art or discipline so that they are willing to put in the effort and time to become an expert at it, which only can happen through diligent practice. But they interests have to be developed first. And I believe those interests to be innate in ever single kid.
I'll cite two authorities here: Amy Chua, the infamous Tiger Mother, who acknowledges that she makes her daughters practice three hours of piano. She says the first hour is easy part. I love that. She also notes the sense of accomplishment and satisfaction her daughters gain when they master something difficult. As she says "something isn't fun until you become really good at it."
This is the irony, though, kids have fun with stuff that they aren't good at all the time. It's the adults who quit too early and need to put in the practice. KoKo had a blast drawing and sketching. I had fun devising those early stories. And you know what? Because of that fun, we both were able to develop the intrinsic motivation (passion) to dedicate ourselves the practice of becoming good at drawing and writing.
I am channeling Robert Steven Kaplan here, from his book What You're Really Meant to Do, where he notes that if you don't have that passion or love for what you do, you'll never become good at it because you won't have the intrinsic motivation to survive the slow grind that takes years for you to rise to the top or become an expert at your field.
And I think the author is missing a key point - the value of creativity. Whether it's Dave Ramsey, Thomas Friedman, Steven Johnson, Seth Godin, Robinson, Jonah Lehrer, Guy Kawasaki, or numerous others the future belongs to the creative. If you can think of a more creative way to offer a service or provide a benefit, you will win out.
2. Multiple intelligences don’t exist
The blogger challenges this. And there is evidence to argue against multiple intelligences. However, to challenge Robinson's ideas and off just ONE author and study as proof? If they don't exist, there should be mountains of evidence. So why only offer one study?
4. Misbehaviour is more damaging than conformity
I believe the blogger misunderstands much of Robinson's work. I have read The Element at least five times and read Robinson's other two books as well, and I don't recall him ever stating self-discipline is an evil weed that needs to be stamped out.
Robinson challenges how many schools force conformity on students - you know the old routine of the factory model education system. I don't think Robinson is asking for a free for all in the classroom.
In fact, I don't see a lot of business people or education reformers or even college professors demanding that students need to conform more. I think it's foolish to assume self-discipline is the result of conformity.
You can't tell me Picasso lacked self-discipline. And you can't tell me his artwork conformed to anything other than the canvas he painted on.
The same is true for ee cummings or Steve Jobs or Guy Kawasaki or . . .
And I don't see 'conformity' as one of the 7 Skills Students Need for their Future
By the way, what are the 7 ways?
1. Critical Thinking and Problem Solving.
2. Collaboration and Leading with Influence
3. Agility and Adaptability
4. Initiative and entrepreneurialism
5. Effective oral and written communication
6. Accessing and analyzing information
7. Curiosity and imagination
The blogger states "In any classroom, without compliance with instructions, no one learns anything."
To be fair, that is exactly what I expect a teacher to say. Let's turn that question around a bit, does compliance with instructions guarantee anything?
Sure, a kid can follow the rules, turn in the work, take the notes, get an A and learn nothing.
Don't believe me? Ask you classes one day to raise their hand if they have gotten an A yet learned nothing.
I think you'll be shocked at the results.
I'd also argue that everything Robinson stands for hits most of those 7 ways, especially the last one.
Ultimately, I believe the blogger raises some good questions. He challenges Robinson's ideas. And he allowed me to think about Robinson's in different ways (and write about them in different ways) than I ever thought before. So that was great.
But I stand by Robinson's ideas and beliefs. More than ever now, especially having read that blog post, which reminds me of an article from the infamous Mark Bauerlein where he questions high school teachers whether they really should be making their classes so engaging (yes, only Bauerlein would dream that up). He argues that - like it or not - most of their first two years of college will be full of boring lecture classes with a lot of reading. The correlation here is that engaging teachers are doing their students a disservice by engaging them (again, only Bauerlein would do this)!
How about professors step up their game some and strive to make their large lecture classes more engaging?
How about all of us strive to make student learning more engaging?
Perhaps if we did that - a long with a little passion and creativity thrown in - we wouldn't need a Sir Ken Robinson at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment