Latest news with #KenRobinson
Scroll.in
18-07-2025
- General
- Scroll.in
How India can escape the death valley of education
Having been a teacher for 30 years, it has been evident to me that students emerge from a mould shaped by school and college where they were discouraged to question, argue, disagree, to read beyond the syllabus and the prescribed texts, to express an opinion or think laterally. Most chose sociology, the subject I taught, not because they were interested in it, but because it was considered a 'soft' subject – easy to get admission into and pass. The convenient timing of sociology classes was an additional attraction. It would hardly be an exaggeration to state that many teachers and students, whom I came in close contact with, were bored, tired and disengaged from teaching and learning – both weighed down by the experience. My association with government schools in Mumbai highlighted similar concerns. Problems identified as attention deficit hyperactive disorder, indiscipline, aggression or learning disabilities are also rooted in the marginal socio-economic background of the majority of the children. Poverty, insecurity, filthy and congested living spaces, dysfunctional families, violence and low esteem leaves a mark. Problems with the education system have been apparent to educators for a long time, but perhaps few were more passionate in trying to address them than Ken Robinson, an English academic, author and advisor. The modern system of education the world over – with few exceptions – is deeply flawed, Robinson contended, because its basic premise is restrictive, unimaginative and disengaged from the needs and abilities of children – in fact, of human beings. Robinson's insights and concern have deeply resonated with my decades-long experience of teaching in a university. He believed in the need to reconstruct the entire educational system – a total 'paradigm shift'. His ideas are worth revisiting nearly five years since his death on August 21, 2020, at the age of 70. Learning creativity Robinson was dedicated to reforming the education system: he taught in universities, wrote and lectured extensively, conducted workshops and made policy recommendations. But, to our loss, he is little known in India. The titles of his talks and writings were upfront: 'School kills creativity', 'Bring on the learning revolution', 'I am a fan of home schooling', and the most provocative of them, 'How to escape education's Death Valley'. Each one a gem, sometimes a lucid and thought-provoking critique, sometimes caustic, on the school system, which he boldly argued destroyed creativity in children and adult learners. His analysis hinged on the argument that creativity and imagination are basic human qualities, expressed not merely in arts, music, literature, painting, dance, architecture, design, but in every activity that people undertake. Making a distinction between imagination, creativity and innovation, which are interconnected, he argued that creativity is not necessarily innate and that it can be taught provided, 'it is done well and in the right conditions'. I would add that family and community can also nurture creativity. The current model of education, Robinson believed, was designed for a different time: the 18th century with the economic imperatives of the Industrial Revolution and the intellectual tradition of enlightenment with its ideas of academic ability, deductive reasoning and intelligence. Education was modeled on industrialism: the production line mentality, the division of children as per age, separation of subjects, standardisation of curriculum, testing and so on. This model certainly benefited some who succeeded, but most suffered. Conformity, compliance and competition characterises education at all levels – school, college, university – whereas Robinson believed that human intelligence is characterised by 'diversity, collaboration and innovation'. This is most noticeable in children at an early age before they go through the rigour of routinisation and standardisation. What was also crucial to Robinson was that although education may succeed in helping children understand the world around them, it doesn't make them aware of the world within, their capabilities, potential and passion remaining undiscovered. Education, therefore, ought to make learners 'understand the world around them and talents within them so that they can become fulfilled individuals and active compassionate citizens', he said in his talk, 'Life is your talent discovered.' Education should enable the young to become economically responsible and inculcate the power of curiosity, cultural empathy, creativity, spirit of collaboration and historical understanding. The economic purpose should be tied up with social and cultural purpose. Instead, vast areas of human activity are viewed and lived as routine and uninspired. Good teachers can help learners recognise their talent, value it, pursue it systematically and take risks and face uncertainties, as well as provide all possible assistance to do so. 'Creative activities' should not just be an add-on to the school curriculum – a class or two on music, drawing and painting and storytelling are valuable in themselves – but embedded in the approach to the teaching-learning process. His book, The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything, draws from the phrase 'to be in one's elements' – at one's best, most authentic. This alone, he says, can provide fulfilment, a sense of purpose, meaning and happiness, in addition to the knowledge and skills required for livelihood, and more importantly, enrich one's life and that of others. It can be as uplifting as a spiritual experience. Where change begins The education system must recognise diversity, given that every child is different, hails from a specific social-economic-cultural background and has different abilities, likes and dislikes, attitudes and inclinations. Standardisation cannot become so rigid as to destroy all possibilities of divergent thinking, which allows for unorthodox, original and ingenious ways to interpret questions and find answers to them. In the present system of teaching and evaluation, more and more resources are invested in standardising testing. This creates a hierarchy of subjects: those related to economic opportunity and utility are valued while arts, humanities and the social sciences, remain less so. The division of subjects, Robinson points out, disregards the very purpose of education, which is to develop a holistic approach to connect the manifold dimensions of human life. In recent times, there is an even narrower definition, in preference of subjects that produce material value over those that emphasise social and cultural values. It is a pity that the need for original ideas is encouraged in management and technical studies, in business, and fields that are closely related to the economic sphere rather than in humanities, social sciences, and arts. These are disciplines that offer a deeper understanding of society and culture, human values and our role 'in building a society, rooted in principles of diversity, cooperation, and compassion', as Robinson puts it. Researchers and activists have repeatedly drawn attention to the poor quality of education in government schools in both rural and urban India. A high dropout rate on account of poverty and poor basic facilities is endemic, and children who do manage to remain in school plough through an irrelevant and joyless educational experience. Teaching and learning, by and large, except in a few elite educational institutions, are a frustrating experience for teachers and students, where classrooms reproduce the hierarchy between the two, and students learn early that the authority of the teacher cannot be questioned. The declining social status of teachers, their lack of professional autonomy and lack of motivation to upgrade their skills contribute to the state of affairs. From Robinson's vast experience, which he shares with readers and audiences, I would like to mention two. One was an experiment that challenged children to find different ways to use a paper clip: they discovered 200 uses. In another instance, a young girl diagnosed with ADHD was advised to be sent to a special school. The distressed parents consulted the principal, who left the girl in his office and met the parents outside while observing the student all the time. She danced with great joy and skill in his large office. The principal (I imagine, smiled) and told the parents to admit her to a dance school, which they did. She excelled in dancing, earned a high reputation and even started a dance academy for girls. Every child and adult is not equally talented, but educational institutions can certainly help every child and adult discover and develop their interest and confidence. Parents must also learn not to be obsessed with grades and marks, and admissions, which are viewed as the sole purpose of education, in our competitive, market-driven society.
Business Recorder
24-06-2025
- Business Recorder
Creativity in the era of AI: a new frontier for education
'Do Schools Kill Creativity? a famous TED Talk by Sir Ken Robinson, is one worth listening to again and again. In his talk, he compellingly argues how academic institutions may unintentionally suppress the creative instincts of young minds. As members of an academic institute, we often reflect on how prevailing practices in schools and colleges can negatively influence young minds. The intense focus on achieving a high-grade point average (GPA) frequently discourages students from nurturing their creative thinking and abilities. Creative thinking is a precious gift of the human mind. Children are naturally imaginative, curious, and eager to explore. Yet, only a few manage to hold onto that curiosity as they grow, while most lose it under the influence of societal expectations and academic pressures. Today, in a world shaped by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and countless tools designed to simplify our tasks, a burning question arises: how is this technology influencing our ability to think creatively? As academia begins to embrace this new wave of technology, debates are surfacing about its influence on students' creative abilities. While tech companies promote AI tools as powerful enablers of creativity, skeptics raise strong concerns about their potential to dull the creative edge of young minds. Because these tools offer a quick way to learn concepts, complete assessments, and draft reports, students are not bothered about the possible long or short term impacts of AI on their creative thinking. To them, AI is a powerful, Swiss-knife-like instrument that handles much of their workload in an instant. These AI tools are appealing and versatile, often helping them finish homework so they can enjoy more leisure time with their mobile phones. With the widespread availability of AI tools, we've found ourselves frequently discussing how these technologies might impact students' cognitive abilities. While we lack concrete evidence for now, we often reflect on the noticeable shifts in their habits and learning routines. One day, we decided to involve young engineering students of our class in an experiment. It was not a classical experiment with lots of apparatus but a simple one using a photo of a single Lego block. The moment we asked them to write as many uses of this single block as they could, the room suddenly filled with excitement. They never thought about it earlier. We gave them about three to four minutes to write down the uses. We also asked them to work individually without discussing among themselves. The results were compelling. To analyze them, we turned to the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT), focusing on two key dimensions: 'Fluency' and 'Originality.' Fluency refers to the number of distinct ideas generated, while originality reflects how novel or unique those ideas are. The average number of ideas for the use of a single block of Lego by the students came to be 4.4. Meanwhile, we calculated the average originality score of the ideas to be 3.1. A total of 39 students participated in the experiment. We graded students to be high performers if they scored above average in either dimension. Among them, 3 females and 5 males (around 20%) demonstrated both high fluency and high originality. 1 female and 3 males (approximately 10%) showed high fluency but low originality. A group of 1 female and 4 males (about 13%) exhibited low fluency but high originality. The remaining 5 females and 17 males (roughly 57%) scored low in both dimensions. We were expecting to have more students in the high performers group, but instead we got the opposite. These students were in the final year of their engineering studies. As we observed their responses, Sir Ken Robinson's words came rushing back. Has academia played a role in stifling the creative thinking of these bright young minds? The question hit us suddenly. Following the initial activity, we asked students to explore the uses of a Lego block using any generative AI tool of their choice. They noted the AI-generated ideas on paper and were also instructed to provide the name of the tool used, along with the prompts they entered. ChatGPT emerged as the most popular tool. We then assessed the AI-generated responses using the same TTCT criteria: fluency and originality. The average fluency score rose to 8.8, while the originality score was 3.4, only slightly above the students' average of 3.1. These findings align with research by the Harvard Business School team (Jacqueline N. Lane and colleagues), which highlights AI's strength in generating a high volume of ideas due to its foundation in large language models (LLMs) trained on vast datasets. However, since originality is measured by the practicality and novelty of ideas, the narrow margin in scores suggests that human creativity is still very much competitive. While we acknowledge the potential for bias in our assessment of originality, the results overall showed AI slightly outperforming humans in generating varied uses for the Lego block. Humans are naturally creative, while AI models are trained to mimic creativity. Companies are working tirelessly to refine these models as AI products flood the market. Machines are learning at a remarkable pace, but human creative thinking must be continually nurtured through intentional mental engagement to address real-world challenges. With the widespread and frequent use of AI tools, there's a growing risk of overdependence. What if the belief that AI is superior and quicker in solving problems becomes deeply ingrained in younger generations? The outcome could be troubling: complete reliance on AI with little effort invested in cultivating their own creative abilities. As academicians, we must ensure that students see AI as a collaborative partner, one that enhances, rather than replaces, their ability for divergent thinking. They should experience both types of learning environments: one where they work creatively without AI, and another where they leverage AI in problem-solving tasks. Beyond making them AI literate, we have to guide them in avoiding total dependence on this technology. Striking this balance is no easy task; it demands deliberate and sustained effort. Reflecting on Sir Ken Robinson's TED Talk, we believe that academic discourse should move beyond asking whether AI kills creativity. Instead, it should focus on how academia can responsibly harness AI while nurturing human imagination. The larger, more pressing question is: Are we academicians ready to take on this responsibility? Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Yahoo
11-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Iron Mine announces suspension of operations
Utah Iron announced Thursday it was suspending mining operations that will affect more than 100 employees as one of the county's largest employers. The company cited 'significant fluctuations in global markets that have created an unusual and strenuous amount of uncertainty for buyers and sellers.' Officials noted, 'We are navigating unchartered waters with unfamiliar and seemingly insurmountable risks. While it pains us to suspend our mining operations, it is a necessary step while we regroup and adjust to current market pressures.' Iron County Commissioner Ken Robinson said the suspension will hurt both impacted employees and the county. 'It will be painful for sure.' The St. George News reported the suspension of operations was due to President Donald Trump's tariff on China. The media outlet reported the iron ore is mined in Utah, shipped to China for processing and then returned to the United States. Trump's tariff against China exports went into effect at midnight. But Robinson said there are domestic processing facilities available in the United States. 'Hopefully they can enter that market.' Another commissioner declined to comment due to litigation involving the company, but would not elaborate. The St. George media outlet, citing Cedar City News, reported that one worker said he hoped people understand how the tariffs are impacting local communities. 'I feel like it's important to raise awareness about the effects Trump's economic policies are having on our local community,' the worker said. With the mine's status in limbo, the employee said he, like several of his coworkers, had already started updating resumes. This worker said he hopes to find a similar job in the Cedar City area, possibly in manufacturing. According to the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, the mine has been in production on and off since World War II.
