Friday, February 2, 2018
Dr. Ken Robinson--Rethinking Education
After having listened to some of the views of Dr. Ken Robinson, what do you think of his position that our schools fail to nurture creativity? Do you agree with his arguments? Are there any points that you disagree with him strongly? After watching his ted talks, make two posts. At least one of your posts should be a response to something one of your classmates said. You may completely disagree with him, or agree with him strongly. It's fine to have one post that agrees with him on one point, while you disagree with him on another subject. I hope we can generate some lively online discussion!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dr. Robinson and his position being that schools fail to nurture creativity. I think now the education system is so focused on teaching students to learn through a black and white lense, ultimately taking one's ability to think creatively. This is a flaw within the education system and such a narrow ranged system prevents students from reaching their fullest potential.
ReplyDeleteHaley, I definitely agree with this point. I think that his thoughts about why students are taught and grouped in bunches the way that they are is spot on. I think that if the students were grouped in some other way than just their age group then they would flourish more and become more creative. I would like to see if anybody's tried this out.
DeleteI agree Haley, only acknowledging one type of intelligence makes people who would succeed in other areas feel like they aren't as smart. I think that schools that recognized that intelligence comes in many forms would be able to produce successful students in all areas of life, not just academic ones. I think that this is something we can see in our own school, with classes like math and science having 4 year requirements, and art classes only being offered as electives, not requirements, and not even having some classes that might interest other students, like dance or argriculture. Not exposing students all areas they can be creative in stunts their growth.
DeleteI think that it was really interesting when he presented the map of the United States and the cases of ADHD. I was taken aback when he seemed to be discrediting the idea that ADHD is a legitimate disorder. I personally will admit that I do not know much on this topic, and didn't even know that it was up for debate, however, I know that many of my friends suffer from the disorder. Because of this, I was a bit confused when he made these comments. Furthermore, I failed to agree with him when he stated that the doctors were basically feeding us tons of unnecessary drugs. I don't think thats how it works, however, I am no expert on the topic.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you on this point about ADHD supposedly not being a legitimate disorder. I believe that it is, and I also didn't know that this was something that was being debated. I also agree with you that his point about doctors feeding us unnecessary drugs was a bit off, but I can see where it might make sense that doctors are prescribing us with medication as a first choice rather than exploring other options first.
DeleteI think through this point Mr. Robinson was trying to suggest that when challenged academically, society automatically assumes something is wrong with our brains. However, in reality a change in the learning style could be the ultimate fix in order to succeed. This does not discredit the fact that ADHD is a legitimate disorder, but rather how drugs are not the answer for those that struggle academically but may flourish within the arts.
DeleteI can certainly see your disagreement with his statement. While doctors classify ADHD as a "disorder" it is quite common....which makes me wonder if it is not more a typical condition, rather than an abnormality. I saw Ken Robinson's point more as being if schools taught in ways that were more stimulating and engaging, those with ADHD would not have as much trouble focusing and we would not need to medicate children in order for them to learn, especially with a condition that is so common in the population. Mind you, I say this as a mom of two boys, both who take medication to help with symptoms of ADHD. I wish this were not necessary.
DeleteReplying to the initial comment only: Last semester, I briefly studied medication in America and pondered the question, "Are we an overmedicated society?" After reading a few credible articles, my opinion stands that yes, we are. Here is a quote from the most thorough article I read; it says, "We have substituted anti-depressants and medications as a cure for stress and anxiety, while there are hosts of other natural and safer ways to manage the problem." I think this can easily be tied back to school and creativity. It's quick to dismiss a rambunctious 8-year-old as being ADHD and jump right to medication as an "easy fix", when the root of the problem may be that he/she just isn't interested in what is being taught. Ken even remarks about a 6-year-old girl who is focused and invested in art class but not as much in other areas. It's also important to remember that a lot of young kids are hyperactive and full of energy in general. I'm not trying to dismiss the legitimate cases of ADHD but also want to recognize that medication in general is often viewed as an "easy fix" when the problem (in this case of the public school system) might be in the structure of the education system or the child's interests.
Delete- Grace Bertagna
I agree with Mr. Robinson's points regarding the fact that schools are unable to nurture creativity. I found it interesting when he brought up the point that education is supposed to take us into the future, and the fact that it's so unpredictable. This strengthens his point that schools fail to nurture creativity because we need to be looking for more creative ways to venture into the future and to place the same level of importance on creativity that we place on literacy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mr. Robinson's point about students focusing on one area so much they may never find their true passion. I personally love dance, and although it is offered as a class at some schools, is ignored by public education. I relate to what Gillian Lynne said, that she has to move to think. I think that because education focuses on what is in our brains instead of what our body has the potential to do, people miss out on how they learn best or how they can be most creative because the school does not value or allow it. Intelligence can be measured in many ways like he says, and our education system needs reform so that everyone's intelligence can be seen, and not just the people who execel in the areas school wants us to.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mr. Robinson's point about going away with standardization. Some students can easily do well on these tests because they are naturally good test takers or they use drugs such as adderall to help them. Instead, we need to develop a more student-friendly education system where teaching styles are determined to fit the student. Not all students learn the same way, however, that is how our education system is structured. It is very easy for an intelligent kid to fail in a system like this, and you can easily waste the potential of kids like these.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you. I think that it would be very wise for schools to more consciously take in to account students' varying learning styles. This would definitely help many more students be successful.
DeleteI think that all of the points Mr. Robinson made are extremely valid. For one, I could not agree more with his statement that, as we are educated, we learn to fear being wrong. I think that this is one of the most dangerous things about schools today–how they strip so many children of their fearlessness as well as creativity. I also liked the story that Mr. Robinson talked about about Gillian Lynne. I think that a huge flaw in most schools is how sedentary the education is. For me, sitting for 7+ hours a day makes learning much less enjoyable and exciting.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree, I get tired of sitting still every day as well and I think it's interesting that for over a century the manner in which education and knowledge is applied to students hasn't changed that much even though research and scientific innovation has clearly progressed and shown differences in our brains, especially younger brains about how many people learn differently yet school is still streamlined to be less beneficial to people who do learn differently.
DeleteI agree with the idea that schools make us afraid to be wrong, and to think that not going to college or have a traditional succesful occupation is wrong. Without giving students equal opportunity to creative outlets as academic classes restricts them from seeing all possibilities for the future.
DeleteI agree with you. As helpful as it is for teachers to have a 70 minute class to fit in more material, it is a very long time to be sitting at a desk. I think that in a 70 minute block it is beneficial to the students if there is a little break or if we are able to be moving around during activities because sitting for so long does make learning much less enjoyable. - katie
DeleteI think that Robinson makes a very good point about the nature of our education system and its conditioning of students that being wrong is a bad thing and that we should always avoid being wrong. I think the stigmatization of mistakes definitely makes students much more cautious about putting themselves out there and it makes us fail to offer up ideas that might be outside of the box. I think that it’s definitely a very strong viewpoint but he has lots of logical arguments supporting his point that make it believable rather than far-fetched. Although he has somewhat polarizing or unheard of ideas, he uses these to grab the attention of the listener very effectively by talking about how schools “kill” creativity, immediately making them want to hear what he has to say. His discussion of the educational hierarchy also was very interesting because I think we can relate to that in our own school district as well, with arts definitely being on the back burner when compared to English or math, so we are essentially socialized to focus on the topics that the system deems are important rather than those that we might be more passionate about.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the overall idea that Ken Robinson makes in his ted talk, especially the idea that “Intelligence is dynamic”. I think this idea is often overlooked because most people see intelligence as a 4.0 gpa and Ivy League school but people can be intelligent in many different ways. Robinson expresses that people assume that success and jobs comes form a college degree but there are so many succesful people who did not finsih college or even attend college. I definitely agree that many schools are suppressing our artistic sides even though an art credit is often required most of our time is spent in academic classes. Many classes do allow us to be opinionated and research topics of our choice but they definitely do not put a lot of importance on the arts in public schools.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and with Ken in this regard, because intelligence is so often seen as strictly pertaining to school, and is measured in grades and class rank. We talk about being school smart vs street smart, but there are so many different ways and so many different topics that someone can be or have intelligence. The way brains are wired causes different ways of thinking, and so one person might be really good at science and is very detailed oriented, while another can love art and is better at looking at the whole picture. The point is that intelligence can't be measured in just one unit because then there are many others who could feel inadequate, simply because they're better at something else or think a different way.
DeleteI believe Ken makes some valid and truthful points about the way our schools are structured and how students are taught to think. Most people consider intelligence being a stat related to academia, when in fact, it can take on many forms including that. American society has largely structured itself around this concept. Colleges and schools typically look at what a student can produce in terms of grades. Businesses then look at what you have done and trained for in college to select new employees. In some sense, restructuring schools, would force a situation where society would have to be restructured as well. I do support placing more emphasis on the creative arts and other applications of creative thinking. Workshop classes are another great example of a style of class where students can allow their creative juices to flow. Ultimately, making school a more interactive place that emphasizes both gaining knowledge in basic fields such as the sciences, english, and foereign languages and also expressing creativeness would better prepare students for life after school.
ReplyDelete- Everett Wonson
I agree with Dr. Robinson on his idea that schools fail to nurture creativity. In school everyone is forced to do the same thing as everyone. I think this is bad because not everyone learns the same and has the same values. I feel that school doesn't allow students to branch out and learn things that they are interested in. I think it would be better if school was more flexible to fit the individuals needs and values.
ReplyDeleteOne of the major points that resonated with me most was the idea that in the education system, mistakes are stigmatized and seen as the worst possible outcome. I know that a lot of students feel the pressure to be or appear to be perfect, stemming from the desire to be the best candidate for a college, from the parents of the student, or from another source. Schools and the education system cultivate this fear of making mistakes through the idea that every piece of work we produce feels graded. While I'm not saying that we should get ride of assessments and grades completely because I do think there is some value in receiving feed back, I do agree with Ken in that students feel the need to always be the best or continually push themselves, with no leeway for room to grow and explore new topics or interests. Another interesting idea that Ken discussed was the historical reasoning for why certain subjects were/are more valued than others. The education system as we know it today was developed around obtaining more practical knowledge and skills to work at the time. He claims that today, there should be a change on the focus of the schools because these certain skills aren't as necessary as they were at the time for everyone in the education system. While I do agree completely that more value should be placed on the arts and more creative subjects, I think that there is a level of the more "classic" subjects that should be maintained. If these could be taught in more creatively stimulating ways, then perhaps a nice balance could be found between the two worlds.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this point about the stigma in todays society about mistakes. It is so much harder to learn from them now that there is a defined idea of success that is so hard to attain as it is. Adding penalties for getting something wrong only makes it harder and most likely demotivates students to push themselves.
DeleteWhat I found fascinating about this Ted Talk was Sir Robinson’s ability to convey a very important message in such a causal manner and really draw in his audience by making jokes in order to win them over and guarantee that they will listen to his argument. After garnering the crowds Education he then goes on to make a point I have heard several times before about the faults of a system of education the dictates what children MUST learn. I agree with Sir Robinson and his points about creativity because I believe that children as they grow up can be forced into avenues of learning that they do not necessarily want to belong to which ultimately results in them losing the time they needed to build up a creative personal trait they might have wanted to improve.
ReplyDeleteI think Dr. Ken Robinson makes some very interesting points. I do believe that our education system is very flawed. I think it does more harm than good for many. I found his story about Gillian Lynne very interesting. Schools tend to suppress the arts and look at them as lesser compared to the core subjects. I believe that we should encourage exploration of the arts and embrace the talents that people are given. The system needs to be less focused on numerical rankings that benefit few and instead help create a well rounded person.
ReplyDeleteI think that as of recently I agree more and more with Ken's point of education taking us into a career that we can not get to. It has become a well known fact that so many graduates of colleges and universities around the world are having trouble finding the job to simply make ends meet. It seems as though that education is either not providing enough guidance, or the careers that we choose to go into are not capable of balancing out the time, money, and effort that lead to getting that particular job.
ReplyDelete-Sebastian
DeleteDr. Ken Robinson brought up a really exceptional point about how we should treat the arts in school systems as a vital subject, just as much, or even more so than regular core subjects. Young children, who have not been fully exposed to the world and to subjects like math and history have the brains of creators, and the mindset that they can do anything or think 'out side of the box'. However, public education systems drill it into the heads at this young age that they must accomplish the basics and continue to do so for the rest of their middle and high school (and college) careers. It most times sets them in a path as a one way thinker, or in Dr. Ken's opinion, to accomplish a job of a professor. I hope that more schools across the country, and world are taking into account this important truth, that arts in education is vital in the maturing of a student. When Dr. Ken told the story of the play with the three kings being portrayed by young children, it was very eye opening to me that kids are not afraid to be wrong, they take chances. And when you grow up, that slowly diminishes into not taking any chances because we are afraid of being wrong or thinking different. If schools were to highlight and encourage arts more so, I believe that newer generations of students will grow up happier, brighter, and bring more to their own life, and others.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the idea that students are afraid to answer incorrect, and when we do mess something up it is hard to learn from it. This is something that Ken says we lose as we get older. He thinks that children are not afraid to take a risk to learn something and that is commonly the case, but as soon as we are put in a classroom the idea of learning form mistakes falls away and we are forced to do well otherwise we can't succeed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of the points that were made. I also agree with what Sebastian said. It is harder for students to answer a question because they are afraid that they are wrong. As a result they are too worried about what people or the teacher will think about them and are not focussed on understanding the information. However Ken talks about the importance of art and how it is vital to education. I would disagree, I do not think that it is vital to the development of the student.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Ken's point that children are stigmatized to be unintelligent if they do not succeed in the traditional educational disciplines like math and language, when this is not the case. There are so many children out there who are bright in other areas, but since this isn't the main focus in public schools, kids like this are often overlooked or even looked down upon. It's sad to see, really, because it discourages kids and makes them feel less worthy than their peers. This dynamic needs to shift so that every child is recognized for his/her success in whichever area, whether it be math, history, music or art. This will create a more productive society going forward because children will be motivated to succeed where they are best equipped to do so.
ReplyDelete- Grace Bertagna
I agree that schools have a very certain way of teaching that doesn't apply to all students. They think that good grades relate to a good career and a successful life. However, the systems that schools put in place don't have a lot of variation for their students and often are teaching subjects that don't relate to their students. These classes do help teach good study habits and patience but there are better ways to educate children. The amount of control and structured learning limits the potentials of many students and doesn't let them explore areas of possible interest. I think that school is useful to many but there are ways to improve the environment of school and areas that are given value.
ReplyDeleteI agree that school systems are very flawed these days. I believe that the curriculum should not be as black and white as it is now, because it is refraining kids from exploring their own potential. One student's strong suit could be one students biggest challenge and that should be taken into account when evaluated. There needs to be a more diverse curriculum where every student is able to thrive. Intelligence can be measured by more than an exam. Schools should be encouraging more hands on projects because students can adopt more transferable skills through a project than an exam; these skills could be applied to their careers later in life.
ReplyDelete- katie ^
Delete