The book "Who Killed Creativity?" by Andrew Grant and Gaia Grant is filled with snippets of insight, such as:
- We leave school believing it is important to be correct rather than be creative.
- Without creative thinking [individuals] cannot adapt to the future.
- The desire to appear knowledgeable can cut an individual off from learning.
- Reviving creative thinking often involves the humility of becoming a beginner.
- Innovation is no longer a luxury but a necessity.
The first point is exactly what Ken Robinson is referring to in his speech. Like Brendon and Mari, who have both revealed their belief in the importance of "personalised learning" and how schools only emphasise grades (an issue that I have referred to in earlier posts), I believe that teaching and learning within schools need to change, particularly if we are going to prepare our learners for the global knowledge economies where they will have to be adaptable and innovative.
Our schools, like Brendon proposes, are still based on the factory model of churning out compliant and trainable workers. Yes, we will always need people who can work in a factory, and to use a Seinfeld cliche, "there's nothing wrong with that." However, the reality is that the 21st century will require individuals who can "think outside the square." To do this they need an environment, as outlined in Brendon's shared video: Introducing 20% Time in Your Classroom. The classroom the video illustrates is an environment where it is okay to "fail" and difference is encouraged.
I believe NGL encourages creativity as it provides the student with tool options and, although there are some parameters, such as the need to contribute with fellow learners, and to use what is created as a teaching and learning platform, there is so much scope for imagination and individuality. One can personalise the learning whilst also teaching others in an area of interest. I don't recall one assessment item in high schools, at least, that encourage students to take this approach.
Something that will stay with me for a long time after reading Who Killed Creativity? is the idea that the majority of jobs available are what society deems as "safe" and "conventional." These jobs are targeted by the majority of the population because they are easier to obtain, due to the vast amount of them. However, due to the large amount of people who are willing to do them, these jobs are becoming increasingly demanding, with longer hours and expectations. Whereas, the jobs that are not as common, or more difficult to obtain, have a better work-life balance. As a former high school teacher, I can see the validity in this argument as most "seasoned" teachers had informed me that the job was becoming increasingly complex and unmanageable. Is this a result of there being so many people willing to do them? Just a thought.
I would love to hear others ideas on this pivotal area of 21st century learning.
Our schools, like Brendon proposes, are still based on the factory model of churning out compliant and trainable workers. Yes, we will always need people who can work in a factory, and to use a Seinfeld cliche, "there's nothing wrong with that." However, the reality is that the 21st century will require individuals who can "think outside the square." To do this they need an environment, as outlined in Brendon's shared video: Introducing 20% Time in Your Classroom. The classroom the video illustrates is an environment where it is okay to "fail" and difference is encouraged.
I believe NGL encourages creativity as it provides the student with tool options and, although there are some parameters, such as the need to contribute with fellow learners, and to use what is created as a teaching and learning platform, there is so much scope for imagination and individuality. One can personalise the learning whilst also teaching others in an area of interest. I don't recall one assessment item in high schools, at least, that encourage students to take this approach.
Something that will stay with me for a long time after reading Who Killed Creativity? is the idea that the majority of jobs available are what society deems as "safe" and "conventional." These jobs are targeted by the majority of the population because they are easier to obtain, due to the vast amount of them. However, due to the large amount of people who are willing to do them, these jobs are becoming increasingly demanding, with longer hours and expectations. Whereas, the jobs that are not as common, or more difficult to obtain, have a better work-life balance. As a former high school teacher, I can see the validity in this argument as most "seasoned" teachers had informed me that the job was becoming increasingly complex and unmanageable. Is this a result of there being so many people willing to do them? Just a thought.
I would love to hear others ideas on this pivotal area of 21st century learning.
No comments:
Post a Comment