Week 6: Schools Kill Creativity

I have seen this video several times before, and each time I am still floored by the points Robinson makes.  His criticizes are entirely true and seem almost commonsensical when he points them out, yet I have never considered them in my own reflections both about my current career as well as my own educational experiences.  Perhaps this is because I have become so normalized and accustomed to the ideology surrounding what traditional schooling should be.

"If you're not prepared to be wrong, you will never come up with anything original." It is by making mistakes that we learn new things.  By feeling comfortable to step out on a whim and try, we are able to come up with new things.  My boyfriend has a three-year-old at home who likes to "read" books.  I am constantly amazed by her ability to make up the story by looking at the pictures and drawing on what she remembers from having the story read to her in the past.  She "fills in the gaps" as Ken Robinson would say.  I agree that somewhere along the way, this willingness to innovate is lost in children.  I teach 10th and 12th grade, and regularly I experience students' unwillingness to be incorrect, to take a risk, or to make a mistake.

I agree that schools entirely stifle creativity, when they should be cultivating it.  As my prior blog entry points out, creativity is a skill essential for success in the 21st Century workplace.  As Robinson highlights, we value one type of thinking and one way of reasoning in schools, when we for all intents and purposes should be honoring diversity, multi-vocality, and different opinions in the classroom.  There is not one correct to solve a problem, therefore there should not be one way of learning and demonstrating that learning in the classroom.  It blows my mind to think about how many talented individuals have been stripped of their unique talents by the educational system.

I work in a magnet school for the Arts, so I can say that I have seen some of this creativity being celebrated and cultivated within the walls of my school.  However, it is not on the level as it should be.  I believe that teachers need to constantly tap in to their students own interests and what they are good at in order to best educate them.  We have to relate to our students on a personal level in order to determine the best way to help them learn.  In my own classroom, I could definitely take some of what Robinson points out and put it in to better practice.  I think that allowing students to have options in assignments is a good way to do this.  For example, I will give students a set of criteria for an assignment, but then allow them to choose how they would like to demonstrate their understanding.    Some of these options include allowing students to write, to demonstrate through a skit, to make a song or dance, or to give a presentation about the subject matter.

When I went to school, there was one way of learning and demonstrating learning.  That was by sitting, listening and taking notes and then reproducing them on the chapter test.  In today's day and age, where content is instantly accessible at the click of a mouse, it is not entirely necessary nor helpful to know every step in the Kreb's Cycle of photosynthesis or to be able to do long division by hand.  Ken Robinson's challenge to teachers is one that I agree with and hope to honor throughout my career.  Cultivating creativity and ingenuity in our students and supporting them in what it is they are talented at is something that should be at the top of our list.

Week 6: A Philosophical Debate: 21st Century Skills

After reading the articles that shape this debate and mulling over how I feel about education and preparing today's students for the 21st century global workplace, I align my own views with the supporters of teaching 21st Century Skills.  I do not really see both sides of this debate as being in stark opposition to one another.  The critics of 21st Century Skills do not disregard the importance of equipping students with problem solving, communication, and critical thinking skills, nor do the supporters of 21st Century Skills disregard teaching content.  I believe that all authors agree that students today need to graduate high school knowing how to critically think, problem solve, and work collaboratively in order to be successful in the workplace.  The goals are the same. The rub arises in the different pathways that one can take to get to that same end.

Stacy Khadaros' article "Schools Tap 21st Century Skills", Maura Banta's article "The Value of Teaching 21st Century Skills," and Judy Salpeter's article entitled "21st Century Skills: Will Our Students Be Prepared?" all argue a point that I firmly agree based on my own personal experiences as well as in my career as an educator.  That point is that individuals learn best in situ.  I believe, like Stacy Khadaros, that not only do we learn by doing, but that we may learn best by doing.  She makes the point, as do all of the other supports, that learning content within and through the context of "acquiring and acquiring new skills" is truly the best way to master something.

A perfect example would be my own experiences learning to drive a manual car.  The process was explained to me by my father, I had been in a manual car with several drivers in the past, and  I read several articles online about how to drive a stick shift. It wasn't until I was on the road that I really learned to drive a stick.  Only by having the actual pedals under my feet, practicing how to slowly release the clutch and press on the gas pedal, and by staling out a couple thousand times (it was quite comical now that I look back), did I start to figure out how to manipulate the vehicle.  Another point that the supporters argue that I too can demonstrate through my example is that I learned to drive a stick out of necessity; because I had to.  I took a huge interest in learning to drive my car as it was my only means of transportation at the time and it mattered to me and my everyday life. This is the same as having students do meaningful work and solve real problems in the community.  As Judy Salpeter highlights at the end of her article in her anecdote about Marco Torres classroom, students want to learn and be in school when the work is challenging and meaningful to their lives.

Although my article highlights how I learned best in situ, that is not to discredit the knowledge I had to bring with me prior to getting behind the wheel.  As Daniel Willingham points out in the article "Flawed Assumptions Undergird the Program at the Partnership for 21st Century Skills", knowledge and skills cannot be teased out from one another.  It is difficult to critically think and problem solve without having some basic knowledge of the topic.  Diane Ravitch feels that "a great deal of knowledge is necessary before one can begin to reflect on its meaning and look for alternative explanations".  While I do not feel as extreme about content knowledge as Ravitch, I do agree that in order for me to get behind the wheel and learn to drive my manual car, I had to have the basic knowledge not only of how the car worked, but also of the basic rules and laws of driving.  Salpeter argues that "it is possible to learn the simple things in the process of addressing a complex problem."  While in some cases this may be true, in my car driving example, I do not think I would have been able to simultaneously learn the rules of driving alongside and within learning to drive a stick shift.

And so where does that leave my opinion at the end of the day?  I feel that learning by doing is the way to teach content and 21st Century Skills.  Neither should be taught as a monolith.  Rather, the best way to teach the two is in and through the other.  Content should be taught alongside technological literacy and problem solving.  I strongly support integrating 21st Century Skills as I feel not only are they essential for today's student, but they can also serve to rejuvenate and refresh students own curiosity and interest in learning.