What is the purpose of education? The main purpose of education is to give everyone equal chance as a means to succeed in life. Through learning knowledge and skills, students can learn how to deal with problems they might face in the future. For example, main reasons why students learn language are that they can learn how to understand others' opinions, express their own ideas, and solve problems through communication. They learn Math, because Math teaches them not only how to calculate figures precisely, but also how to think logically and systematically.
How about creativity? Should creativity be taught in the classroom? Does it have to be considered as important as other subjects like Language, Math, and History? Sir Ken Robinson answers "Yes" in this video. He claims that current educational system is not enough for the students to increase their creativities. As current education system was established during industrialization period, the traditional methods do not work in this modern era, which demands people more creative thinking. "Education kills creativity," says Mr.Robinson, emphasizing the necessity of creativity education. He claims that creativity is so important that it should be considered as a main subject.
Of course, creativity is a very important factor, especially for those who live in this modernized and diverse society. I strongly agree with it. However, Mr.Robinson's claim contains some problematic points as well. I would like to point out those problems of his speech.
His claim lacks feasible methods. He does not suggest any tangible solution to change the status quo. He claimed that creativity should be considered as importantly as other subjects and it should be strongly taught in the classroom. But the problem is, "How?" How can we actually teach creativity to students? How can we raise the creativity level of the education system? It's not an easy question to answer. Some people say that we should make a new subject called 'Creativity', which deals with creative thinking, reading, and writing skills. However, this is a very bad way of teaching creativity, because it can make students lose interests in the subject 'Creativity' itself. Rather than making a new subject, we have to find a new way to teach creative skills in other subjects. I think the best way to raise creativity is to increase creative activities in the coursework. For instance, under conventional educational system, teachers only gives a lecture to students. Instead, I would recommend teachers only suggest a conceptual basis and problems, and let students freely discuss and try to make their own solutions. Similarly, we can do apply same process in other courses. For example, in history class, students have to get opportunities to conduct their own research, read old historical sources, and write historial paper. In Science courses, students have to get chances to freely discuss about scientific phenomena, conduct their own experiments, and write a scientific research paper. These activities should be included in the courses; just giving lectures and taking exams do not raise the creativity of students.
Another point is the 'attitude' of people. Many people agree that creativity is very important, but they also mind entirely changing educational system. They are quite conservative when it comes to educational matters. For example, in South Korea, many parents say 'creativity' should be prioritized, but if we ask them, "Do you want your kids to study in liberal atmosphere?" they woud say "No." They would rather answer, "Still lectures, exams, and quizzes - these conservative methods of learning- are also very important and should remain as well." These conservative attitudes prevent new liberal educational system from being applied. Many people are still obsessed with grades and test scores, and I think the grades and scores are main factors that deters the increase of creative thinking in classroom. Attitudes of people - obsession with grades and old ways of learning - should be reformed to enforce new mechanism of creative learning.
Very nice response, and I like that you DO include some alternatives and ideas. Does Robinson have these ideas? I'm sure he does if we read more of his material. The speech was more for the purposes of raising the issue rather than introducing the solutions. If we look at Finland - we can see a model that is working - which Robinson probably would deem as being close to what he's suggesting. That education model is largely self-guided by students themselves, where teachers are coaches instead of lecturers. It's more bottom up than top down, and students get to learn at their own pace without a lot of pressure. In that kind of system we might think there's a danger of some students doing as little as possible - but the opposite occurs. A new sort of "status quo" evolves where students work together and want to learn - simply because they find it rewarding. In other words, the kid who hate math isn't forced to bash his head against the wall.
답글삭제You might find material on another students blog interesting:
http://seewanaplang.blogspot.com/2011/03/education-finland-vs-korea.html
Good writing and I agree with you about history. Instead of opening a book, it's much more rewarding to seek out and research history that might not yet BE in a book. That's a creative process.