June 16, Total shares:
I share insights about how the digital world is changing the way we live, work and play. I always knew that.
Put bluntly, I thought reform would be easier and that creativity and innovation would be welcomed. After all, most of the people that I talk to in my working life — both inside and outside the university — are convinced that education must change.
This is particularly true in the context of a digital age. Constant technological change will have an unpredictable and uncertain effect on the way we live and work.
Giving young people the skill-set to deal with this uncertainty is the only option. It is acknowledged that this is a vital element in preparing them for the world of work. Young people arrive at the workplace ill-prepared for its realities.
This is true for legal practice, but also in the other fields that I am familiar with, such as health-care or the restaurant business. And I am convinced every industry is facing similar difficulties. So, what is the problem and, more importantly, how do we solve it?
Everybody agrees that education is important. Also, education will not disappear in our automated future. It will always be necessary to prepare the next generation for the unpredictable and fast-changing things to come.
Yet, this is much easier said than done. What is interesting is that each of these problems apply to any type of reform and innovation.
In this respect, I should have known better. This process is then repeated. The focus is on measuring a short-term capacity for retaining factual information. They act as a barrier for innovation and the necessary reform. In fact, they act as a barrier to any kind of creativity.
At the peak of this hierarchy of entrenched interests is government. Established procedures are periodically checked and verified by government ministries. Yet, the current box-ticking and formalistic approach results in educational institutions that cling on to old systems and inefficient procedures.
Until the entrenched interests recognize this problem, widespread reform seems unlikely. Again, most of my colleagues agree that it is important to discuss and adapt to the opportunities and challenges of the digital age.
However, the reward systems in education refuses to take creativity and innovation into account. At least, this is what is stated on their websites and other public statements. And yet, the internal culture is both different and much more resistant to change and innovation.
It is clear that public statements alone are not enough and reforming organizational culture will not happen overnight. Let me be clear. I will not be deterred by the traditional models and the entrenched interests that protect them. I realize more than ever that genuine change always takes time.
Thank you for reading! There is a new story every week.Mar 19, · Sir Ken Robinson in his now famous Ted Talk, “How Schools Kill Creativity,” argues for the need to reform existing education models (that were originally designed to support industrialization.
"Mrs. Lynne, Gillian isn't sick," he said. "She's a dancer. Take her to a dance school." She did. As education scholar Ken Robinson says in his TED Talk on creativity, Gillian went onto the Royal Ballet and into musical theater history.
Dec 07, · Many others explore the nature of creativity and how emerging technologies can extend our creative abilities and can transform teaching and learning at the same time. Apr 10, · Creativity isn't a test to take, a skill to learn, or a program to develop.
Creativity is seeing things in new ways, breaking barriers that stood in front of you for some time. While you may (correctly) argue that school is not necessarily a place which inspires or develops creativity.
It definitely does not kill it.
I don't find school creatively stimulating, however I don't allow it to stifle my creative side. I merely pursue it outside of school (for me its photography). It is an uncreative person who allows school to "kill" their creativity.
The ability of the school to kill the creativity of the students is further portrayed by the fact that they do not apply what they learned in class in the real life situation. It is an indication of the failure of the education to adequately address the issues that may affect the students (Elmore et al.).