School kills creativity?

School kills creativity? This is a long-standing question posed by a multitude of parents concerned about schools focusing on too much in teaching uncreative subjects, such as math, language arts, or middle science environment.

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, all imagination is removed, they are prepared to work in uncreative jobs.

What is true in these statements? Is creativity fatally wounded in schools? Can you be creative in science? All these are questions that we are going to comment on, all of them related to the idea of ​​whether or not school kills creativity.

• Related article: "The 18 types of education: classification and characteristics"

Is it true that school destroys creativity?

The question of whether school "kills" creativity is as old as compulsory education itself. While 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 great people responsible for the popular view that school kills the creativity of the youngest is Sir Ken. Robinson, an educator who a few years ago lectured on TED talks, the famous lecture series, in which he claimed that yes, school kills creativity.

Robinson claimed that creativity is not cultivated in educational centers, that children are taught not to step out of line. It is as if it gives strength to those who believe in the typical image shared in networks of a teacher taking a pair of scissors and using them to cut the thinking of their students, making the speech bubble that represents it go from circular to square. The school cuts out thought, squares it.

But what is true about this statement? Without a doubt, Mr. Robinson is a person who has knowledge on the subject, since he is an educator. However, once he opened he published his lecture, there were not a few, also profoundly knowledgeable in the matter, who affirmed just the opposite. Robinson's detractors were of the view that not only did the school not kill creativity, it even encouraged it, just in a way that didn't seem so typically creative at first.

For Ken Robinson, creativity is something that should be fostered as one more skill, with the same status as literacy. Others, such as Tim Leunig, a 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.

• You may be interested in: "What is creativity? Are we all 'potential geniuses'? "

How does the way we define creativity influence?

One of the things that stands out the most about Robinson and Leunig's TED talks is not only their opposite 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 application of scientific principles, the knowledge gained 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 literacy, 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 kinesic or musical-auditory.

For Leunig, creativity is a cognitive competence that is nourished by the acquisition of particular knowledge, knowledge to which a person with severe literacy problems or directly illiterate would not have access.

For Robinson, creativity comes naturally, something people are born with. Instead, Leunig believes 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 the school "kills" this competition or not. In fact, These conceptions of creativity illustrate how meaningless it is to speak of creativity in abstract terms., as if the term meant the same thing to everyone. As Robinson and Leunig's views show, the idea of ​​creativity is something that varies greatly from person to person, even among educational professionals like these two experts.

• Related article: "Brain Plasticity (or Neuroplasticity): What is it?"

Science is creative

When we talk about creativity in school, the first thing one thinks of is plastic and music subjects. Painting is creative, playing the flute is creative, but... And make a model of the human body for biology? What about mixing potions in the chemistry lab? And figure out how to solve a math problem? We find it difficult to associate the idea of ​​creativity in science subjects, despite the fact that all scientific advances are in one way or another the product of creativity. And, of course, language arts subjects can greatly promote this competence.

Creativity varies from subject to subject. We can understand this better if we compare it with another competition to which something similar happens. Critical thinking is a very important skill in most disciplines and, if we ask any expert on what he wants, we will probably find similarities between historians, mathematicians, biologists and literati. 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 math by deciding that 2 + 2 = 3 is not actually being creative, but 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 sentence.

Creativity can be used in any subject, but you have to teach how. Absolutely any subject in school can be used to encourage creativity, but students cannot be expected to be magically creative. It is necessary to teach this competence, not skill, transversely, in the same way as if you want For students to use critical thinking in a given subject, it should be taught how to do it.

• You may be interested in: "The 4 main types of science (and their fields of research)"

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 be done regarding this competence in the school curriculum. As we have commented, the definition of what creativity is has influenced the perception of how this ability is promoted among students.

If being creative is believed to be painting or playing an instrument, as the school curriculum is focused on acquisition of more scientific and literary competences, it is easy to believe that creativity is not fostered. 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 plastic subject the boys and girls are asked to limit themselves to painting a picture identical to that of a model or that in music they are asked to play a score to the letter, creativity is not being promoted properly bliss. However, as we have commented, if that could be the first steps for the students, once you have learned how to paint and how to play an instrument, compose your own creations after.

Two points can be drawn from the whole debate about whether school kills creativity. The first is that, starting from the fact that there are going to be more creative children than others, the maximum number of children should be given opportunities to develop and put into practice their creative potential. For this, schools must provide their students with a curriculum that incorporates the so-called creative subjects as subjects. mandatory, in order to give the opportunity for those who are more creative in the plastic aspect to have the opportunity to put into practice their abilities.

The second point is that real creativity should be incorporated and cultivated throughout the curriculum. As we have discussed, 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.

• Related article: "The psychology of creativity and creative thinking"

When it 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, even if it is unnoticed even by the teachers themselves.

One of the ways that seems to limit creativity the most, 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're going to want to get a good grade.

Another way you can limit creativity is offering highly structured activities. When a teacher offers very specific instructions, to follow step by step and very specific, students in the class are more likely to follow suit as closely possible. They are less likely to create something new that looks different, something that is just the opposite of being imaginative and creative.

Highlighting and criticizing mistakes is another of the ways in which creativity is limited, in this case in a way that can become even traumatic for some students fearful that doing it wrong is synonymous with failure. When the teacher only highlights the mistakes of a student, especially if he does it in front of his classmates, the children are going to feel very embarrassed. Since this is going to be a very negative experience, kids are going to be less likely to risk 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, be it in biology or plastic arts, is by over-tracking student progress. Teachers must give their students some guidance and structure, but it is also important that they be give children the opportunity to take an active role in their own education and be given independence. Excessive control of what they do and "lead them by the hand" in practically any task they do limits the creativity of the student body.