Sir Ken Robinson on Educational Paradigms: Animate Version
I have featured Sir Ken Robinson here previously. I saw this short 11 minute “talk” today in John Hagel’s twitterfeed. It’s great!
About Me
Zenpundit is a blog dedicated to exploring the intersections of foreign policy, history, military theory, national security,strategic thinking, futurism, cognition and a number of other esoteric pursuits.
-
Customized Web Site & Blog Design
-
Archives
October 16th, 2010 at 5:53 am
I sent this to a friend of mine working his way through a PhD in education (previous experience as a high school physics teacher), and he sent back the following critique: .
October 16th, 2010 at 5:54 am
I sent this to a friend of mine working his way through a PhD in education (previous experience as a high school physics teacher), and he sent back the following critique:
<p></p>.<p></p><blockquote>This isn’t exactly a new idea. It’s been an issue at least since I started taking education classes a decade ago. He makes a great number of legitimate points using some pretty flashy graphics, but this is stuff already known to the education community. What he doesn’t offer though is any solution. What is the best way to organize student if not by age while still being realistic? Should there be flexability between grade level and age? Of course, but can we really accommodate every students’ individual level in every single subject without assigning one or two teachers to each individual student? It would be great if we could, but it cannot be done in any public education system. For example, we have a seven year old at [Charter school this person is employed by] right now because he is too advanced and no elementary school is able to provide him the material at his level, but he is having a difficult time because he’s still a seven year old emotionally and physically. Pre-Algebra is easy for him, but he struggles to work a three hole punch. As a result, we have a system that tries to educate all as best as possible. Is it the best system? No, probably not, but I’m not sure what would be better given the constraints of public education (i.e. free and appropriate for everyone).<br /><br /><br />.<br /><br />
I think everyone knows that little children are more creative than older kids, and that creativity decreases with age. This actually isn’t an inherently bad thing. You have to temper knowledge with reality and practicality. If a kindergartener is asked how cans can be crushed and answers by saying to summoning a purple elephant to sit on them, it’s cute. If you ask the same question and get the same answer from a high schooler, the student looks ridiculous. Sometimes there is just one best solution, not always, but there are more than a few. Is the model we have for appropriately developing creativity currently good? No, but free reign on creativity might be too far on the opposite end of the spectrum. If you want an interesting read, find a copy of <i>What Happened to Recess? And Why are Our Children Struggling in Kindergarten</i> by Susan Ohanian. It’s a bit extreme but provides many more specific points about the state of education. <br /><br />.<br /><br /><br />Again, he brings to light some extremely serious issues in an engaging format, but it is not an awe inspiring revelation. What would be awesome (the original use of ‘awesome’ not the pop one) is if he laid out a legitimate plan for how to fix the problems. I wish that I could sit down with him and just talk. That would provide much more insight. I’m sure he has some idea on what he would like seen done, but he doesn’t enumerate them in his presentation.</blockquote>
October 16th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
While no solutions are offered regarding how to implement the new paradigm into classroom teaching and learning, these types of presentations do serve an important purpose as far as educating the public, and most importantly, policymakers (the vast majority of whom have never taught in K-12 schools), as to where we should be going. They are all stuck in the mud, and are thinking of ‘reform’ as a variation on a theme of the status quo industrial model. Race to the Top is stuck in standardization mode, and will almost certainly fail as badly as No Child Left Behind when it comes to improving academic achievement and preparing kids for their future in a globalized world. I say this because a mini-version of Race to the Top has been the Chicago Public Schools model for a number of years, when Arne Duncan was CEO. I doubt anyone would call the CPS model and its ‘improvements’ (or lack thereof) a staggering success. But this is more or less what is being implemented nationwide.
October 18th, 2010 at 10:17 am
Thanks for this Zen. I’m a big fan of Sir Ken. Also I’m the theory guy on a project run by one of the British "Quangos" that didn’t get shut down in the last round of Whitehall belt tightening (nice that!).
The biggest problem is in actually changing the paradigm of education from the factory to something else, since most everyone is still looking at education in terms of "the factory" . . . and many times their various interests preclude looking at it in any other way. Our approach takes the emphasis away from what the teacher does (or should do!) and puts it rather on the nature of the complex social interaction taking place in the classroom . . . Btw, Clausewitz is very applicable . . .
October 20th, 2010 at 3:55 am
hi T. Greer,
.
Ah, an Ed Doc, your friend has my empathy 😉
.
" What is the best way to organize student if not by age while still being realistic"
.
I think that gets to delivery of education. If you are going to have a mass institution oriented around groups of 30 students being lectured to by an adult, we will group by age. There’s a place for lecture/direct instruction. I don’t think it should be the core of what comprises instructional time in all subjects for reasons we know both from experience and research. Put more orientation around the active/hands on instructional time and age becomes less significant than ability and interest ( within reason).
"Sometimes there is just one best solution, not always, but there are more than a few. Is the model we have for appropriately developing creativity currently good? No, but free reign on creativity might be too far on the opposite end of the spectrum"
.
Real creativity depends on content knowledge and cognitive skills. You can’t have insights about things of which you do not comprehend their significance. What’s needed is a blend of content mastery, analytical-evaluative exercises and efforts to promote counterintuitive thinking, changes of perspective, synthesis etc. It does not have to be a finger-painting free-for all, just a better balance of methodology.
.
Hi seydlitz89,
.
I had no idea you were involved in education! PME ? Or civilian ?
.
"Our approach takes the emphasis away from what the teacher does (or should do!) and puts it rather on the nature of the complex social interaction taking place in the classroom "
.
Yes! I try to explain to new teachers and aspiring ones that they should aim to be the spark plug, not the engine, in the classroom. It’s not about them but what is going on (or not) in the heads of students.
October 21st, 2010 at 4:03 pm
I really like Ken Robinson, and I think that his ideas are great. And I really like the way that this talk is presented. I hope that he can implement some of his ideas, although, the ultra-flexibility he talks about sometimes seems like, to agree with the first commenter, might not be feasible.
November 13th, 2010 at 9:08 am
You have such a great blog! I’m glad I found it. .
Regards
Al Riyadh