TED Journal 1: "Ken Robinson says schools kill creativity"

I had seen this TED talk a few years ago, but watched it again this week in connection with a curriculum idea to use TED talks for extensive listening practice and a sort of "Listening Journal" in a course I am coordinating.

The idea will be to ask students to choose a TED talk, listen, take notes, summarize in 100 words or more, and react in 50 words or more, most likely on a weekly basis.

This blog post is part of "eating my own dog food" as software engineers at Microsoft? like to say. I'm doing a TED journal sample using the Ken Robinson talk above. So, here I go.

Process: I watched the talk and took one page of notes yesterday. As a native speaker and an education professional, I have no problem catching what he is trying to say after just one listening, but his accent and rate of speech may be hard to catch for some of our students--they may need to read the interactive transcript or refer to the subtitles, and that is fine if they need the scaffolding, as long as they also attempt to listen one or more without any assistance. His main points are not too complex, and mostly come at the end of the talk. For most of the time he is telling stories and jokes, some related to his points, and some not. I wonder how first year ICU students will react to this because humor can be frustrating when listening in another language.

 Today, I am using my notes to summarize and react. Then, I think I might watch it again to see if I have really caught the main points.

_______________________________
Summary:
In his 2006 TED talk titled "Ken Robinson says schools kill creativity," British creativity expert Sir Robinson argues that education systems must re-think how human talent and potential is developed. He believes schools kill creativity by over-emphasizing literacy and academic subjects. He calls this a hierarchy of subjects. Schools fail to develop creativity, which should be just as important as literacy, and students interested in dance, art, or music are not encouraged because they can't get a job with those skills. The example of the successful Broadway choreographer who was considered as a child to be deficient because she couldn't sit still is very powerful. Robinson argues that the education system was created by university professors in their own image for largely "industrial" purposes, and the system tries to evaluate with a bias toward academic ability (to make everyone like a professor), leaving out development of creativity. Robinson argues that we must recognize that intelligence is diverse, and create a new human ecology for developing creative capacities.


Reaction:
My own experience matches what Robinson says to some extent, and I agree that the development of creativity (defined as the ability to create original ideas of value) can and should be emphasized more in education. In my case, I was strong on academic subjects such as literature and math, and felt successful and encouraged in my education system. However, I was not as good in creative subjects such as music and art, or creative writing projects where I could do whatever I wanted. Now I wish I had been pushed to be more successful in them--given more open, creative assignments, for example. In this talk, I think the most important point is that the education system, especially teachers, should not dismiss students just because they do not conform to the academic traditions that have been created by the industrial model. Teachers should try to help all types of students find and develop their talents. However, at the same time, I wonder how much Robinson accepts that basic literacy in reading/writing/math/science is actually more useful for most students to get a good job, and therefore it is natural for parents/teachers to emphasize those over art/dance/music. Clearly, some optimal balance has to be found.


Reflection:
In terms of listening and taking notes (20 min.), writing the summary (150 words in about 15 min?) and writing the reaction (150+ words in about 15 min.), this was roughly a one hour task for me. I enjoyed it, but I wonder how students will react. _______________________________ For some students, it may take longer, but I hope students can get used to doing a good TED journal to get exposed to some powerful ideas as well as practice their listening, note-taking, and skills for writing a summary and reaction. In the future, we could also add an oral summary and reaction (1~2 minutes or audio/video)...but that will require a bit of technical logistical preparation that may be beyond the scope of spring term. We will see how it goes!