School kills creativity? This is a question that has long been asked by many parents concerned that schools focus too much on teaching subjects that are not at all creative, such as mathematics, language and literature, or environmental sciences.
Many parents feel that their children, potential artists, see their skills wasted because there is hardly any music or art in their school curricula. School is seen as a place where they are squared away, every bit of imagination is eliminated, and they are prepared to work in uncreative jobs.
What is true in these statements? Is creativity mortally wounded in schools? Can you be creative in science? These are all questions that we are going to comment on, all of them related to the idea of whether or not school kills creativity.
The question of whether school “kills” creativity is as old as compulsory education itself. Although this topic has been widely debated for some time, It has been in recent years that it has acquired special relevance
In part, one of the people largely responsible for making the view that school puts an end to the creativity of the little ones becoming popular is Sir Ken Robinson, an educator who a few years ago gave a talk at TED talks, the famous cycle of conferences, in which he stated that yes, school kills creativity.
Robinson assured that creativity is not cultivated in educational centers, that boys and girls are taught not to step out of line It is as if it gives strength to those who believe in the typical image shared on networks of a teacher taking scissors and using them to cut the thoughts of her students, making the speech bubble that represents it go from circular to square. The school cuts down thinking, grids it.
But what is true about this statement? Without a doubt, Mr. Robinson is a person who has knowledge on the subject, given that he is an educator. However, once he opened and published his conference, there were many, also with profound knowledge on the subject, who stated just the opposite. Robinson’s detractors believed that not only did school not kill creativity, but it even encouraged it, just in a way that at first did not seem so typically creative.
For Ken Robinson, creativity is something that should be encouraged as another skill, with the same status as reading and writing. Others, such as Tim Leunig, scientific advisor to the British Department of Education, who also gave his talk on TEDx talk, gave a contrary view. For Leunig, true creativity is based on knowledge, which is acquired through reading and writing To be creative, you first have to know how to do the basics. Then the originality will come.
How does it influence the way we define creativity?
One of the things that stands out the most about Robinson and Leunig’s TED talks is not only their contrary position, but also the fact of how they define what creativity is. For Ken Robinson, creativity has to do with imagination, self-expression and divergent thinking
In contrast, Leunig explains that for him creativity shows how, through the use of logic and the application of scientific principles, the knowledge acquired can be concentrated and used to create totally innovative new solutions to old problems
While Robinson considers that creativity is an alternative to literacy, to the acquisition of reading and writing, and that it is usually manifested by students with academic problems. Robinson’s vision of what creativity is would coincide with the non-cognitive intelligences of Howard Gardner’s model, such as kinesics or musical-auditory intelligence.
For Leunig, creativity is a cognitive competence that is nourished by the acquisition of particular knowledge knowledge to which a person with severe reading and writing problems or who is directly illiterate would not have access.
For Robinson, creativity is something natural, something that people are born with. On the other hand, Leunig considers that it is more dependent on the acquisition of knowledge in life, which can be learned and practiced.
The definitions of what creativity is influence when determining whether or not the school “kills” this competition. In fact, These conceptions of creativity illustrate how meaningless it is to talk about creativity in abstract terms, as if the term meant the same thing to everyone. As evidenced by the visions that Robinson and Leunig have, the idea of creativity is something that varies greatly from person to person, even between educational professionals like these two experts.
Sciences are creative
When we talk about creativity at school, the first thing that one thinks of is the subjects of art and music. Painting is creative, playing the flute is creative, but… And making a model of the human body for biology? What about mixing potingues in the chemistry lab? And manage to solve a mathematical problem? It is difficult for us to associate the idea of creativity in science subjects, even though All scientific advances are in one way or another the product of creativity And, of course, language and literature subjects can greatly encourage this competence.
Creativity varies from subject to subject. We can understand this better if we compare it with other competition to which something similar happens. Critical thinking is a very important skill in most disciplines and, if we ask any expert what they want, we will probably find similarities between historians, mathematicians, biologists and writers. It seems that they refer to the same thing, describing the same thing. but it is certainly not like that. Being critical of History is not the same as being critical of mathematics, biology or classical literature
The same goes for being creative. Creativity is not a single thing, but a set of processes that, although similar, are different. Creativity in mathematics is not the same as creativity in visual art. A student who decides to be creative in mathematics by deciding that 2 + 2 = 3 is not actually being creative, but is simply inventing a result and acting against the nature of this discipline. On the other hand, he is creative in math if he invents a new method to solve a mathematical statement.
Creativity can be used in any subject, but you have to teach how. Absolutely any school subject can be used to encourage creativity, but Students cannot be expected to magically be creative It is necessary to teach this competence, not skill, transversally, in the same way that if you want students to use critical thinking in a certain subject, you must teach how to do it.
The effect of formal education on creativity
But… does school kill creativity yes or no? The short answer is no, although we must understand that there is a lot of work to do regarding this competence in the school curriculum. As we have mentioned, the definition of what creativity is has influenced the perception of how this skill is promoted among students.
If it is believed that being creative is painting or playing an instrument, since the school curriculum is focused on the acquisition of more scientific and literary skills, it is easy to believe that creativity is not encouraged. But the truth is that it can be acquired in practically any subject. And even It can happen the other way around, that the more traditionally creative subjects such as music, crafts or art do not promote this quality
For example, if in the plastics subject boys and girls are asked to limit themselves to painting a picture identical to that of a model or in music they are asked to play a score verbatim, this is not promoting creativity itself. However, as we have mentioned, these may be the first steps so that students, once they have learned how to paint and how to play an instrument, compose their own creations later.
Two points can be drawn from the entire debate about whether school kills creativity. The first is that, based on the fact that there are going to be more creative children than others, The maximum number of boys and girls should be given opportunities to develop and put into practice their creative potential To do this, schools must provide their students with a curriculum in which the so-called creative subjects are incorporated as compulsory subjects, in order to give the opportunity for those who are more creative in the plastic aspect to have the opportunity to put their skills into practice. .
The second point is that real creativity should be incorporated and cultivated throughout the curriculum As we have mentioned, creativity actually refers to a set of similar but different processes. It can manifest itself in multiple ways and it is the task of each teacher of each subject to find out how.
When he does kill her…
Although, as we have mentioned, school does not kill creativity in most cases, there are certain situations that can limit it. There are some situations that are repeated very often in educational centers that can truly limit creativity, although unnoticed even by the teachers themselves.
One of the ways that most seems to limit creativity according to some research is to focus excessively on the importance of evaluation
As you might think, children want to do their best and they also want to be praised for their work. If the teacher of the subject prioritizes the evaluation and the final result more than the entire mental process to get there, the children in the class will be less likely to take risks. Basically, they are going to want to receive a good grade.
Another way that can limit creativity is offering highly structured activities When a teacher offers very concrete, step-by-step instructions and very specific examples, the students in the class are more likely to follow his or her example as closely as possible. They are less likely to create something new that looks different, which is the exact opposite of being imaginative and creative.
Highlighting and criticizing errors It is another way in which creativity is limited, in this case in a way that can even be traumatic for some students who are afraid that doing it wrong will be synonymous with failure. When the teacher only highlights a student’s mistakes, especially if he does it in front of his classmates, the children will feel very embarrassed. Since this is going to be a very negative experience, kids are going to be less likely to take risks with alternative paths. They will associate being creative and innovative with being embarrassed in front of others.
Another way in which creativity can be fatally wounded in schools, whether in the subject of biology or in the arts, is by over-monitoring student progress Teachers should give their students some guidance and structure, but it is also important that children are given the opportunity to take an active role in their own education and are given independence. Excessive control of what they do and “taking them by the hand” in practically any task they do limits the creativity of the students.
