On a global front, creativity acts as a priority to educational systems and is primary to the debate concerning contemporary learning. In his Talk “Do Schools Kill Creativity”, filmed on TED in February 2006, Ken Robinson argues that the current education system places a significant role in killing creativity in children. He, instead, recommends the creation of a personalized approach that encourages creativity development. Ideally, Robinson develops his credibility on this issue using personal events, credible sources, and emotional appeals.
In his talk, Robinson initially sets the stage by outlining three primary points that define his presence to the audience. These points include the evidence of creativity from previous speakers, the limited knowledge in school systems on how to harness this creativity, and the existence of extraordinary innovativeness and creativity in all children. In between these points, he discusses a series of examples illustrating education’s loss concerning the creativity appeal. Robinson’s idea is that formal education reduces creativity in ways that most educationalists can support through personal experience and scientific evidence. Majorly, however, he discusses it as a well-established fact. He continues to use quotes and examples from historical geniuses as proof that contemporary education is less convincing in nurturing talent compared to traditional systems. For his audience, Robinson concludes by asserting that the world is at a time where exceptionally talented students collapse against the barriers of the current school environment.
Throughout his time on the stage, Robinson utilizes numerous sources and discussions that develop his appeal to ethos. This capability helps build the credibility required to address his argument. Robinson establishes his ethos by demonstrating his scholarly level as well as expertise in the topic. Indeed, Robinson states, “I have an interest in education (0.56).” From his bio on TED, Ken Robinson is an established author, educationalist, motivational speaker, and advisor. He hints a specialty and interest educational issues and spends a significant amount of his professional life advising non-profitable organizations, governments, art organizations and educational institutions. Robinson’s argument conforms to his latest publication, Creative Schools: The Grassroots Revolution That’s Transforming Education. In this book, he argues for an end to the current education and recommends the use of a personalized approach that encourages creativity development (Robinson). This background helps establish Robinson as an authoritative figure worth addressing a crowd on educational issues.
Robinson also establishes his ethos through the use of examples related to his background as a teacher to support his claim. For instance, Robinson states, “I heard a great story recently; I love telling it, of a little girl who was in a drawing lesson (3.30).” He continues to tell how it worried the teacher that the girl rarely paid attention in class. However, during one lesson, it fascinated the teacher that the girl did pay attention. Such stories show that Robinson is an expert of introducing and supporting content through personal and professional examples. The citation links to the fact that he possesses a personal stance in creativity enhancement as a problem in education. Here, Robinson implies that the society should let children nurture their talents because it will result in ultimate satisfaction.
Addition to his ethical appeals, Robinson uses the power of logos by introducing a series of facts as well as ideological progressions. In one instance, he states: “We moved from Stratford to Los Angeles, and I just want to say; my son didn’t want to come; I’ve got two kids; he is 21; my daughter’s 16 (Robinson 07:34).” This reference is a biological fact on the complexity of moving for children. It also supports the idea that Robinson has adequate experience with children and their development process. This situation shows a speaker who can use facts about his family life to make a personal sense of connection with their audience. Robinson also states that: “What TED celebrates is the gift of human imagination (18:34).” In this instance, Robinson uses his host to show the importance of encouraging creativity as opposed to killing it. It is a scenario that reveals that the only way societies could appreciate talent is through offering an environment, such as TED Talk, to help in their development process.
However, the audience’s major encounter with Robinson’s idea is a set of facts from renowned organizations and people. For instance, at one time, Robinson quotes Picasso by stating that, “all children are born artists the problem is to remain an artist as [they] grow up (06:05).” This sentiment shows just how worried he is that contemporary education systems do little to nurture and more to kill creativity. Also, on global education arrangement, Robinson asserts: “At the top are mathematics and languages, then the humanities, and at the bottom are the arts (08:27).” The idea here is that all countries structure their education systems in ways that favor some subjects over others. That is, there appears an order to discourage children from pursuing their talents, and instead focus on societal priorities. Finally, Robinson quotes UNESCO by asserting that, “in the next 30 years [] more people worldwide will be graduating through education than since the beginning of history (12:06).” Such facts are just a few of his many citations aimed at logically supporting his claim that it is possible that education kills creativity. The number of years attached to UNESCO’s projections focus on showing the audience that the effect of education on creativity is an issue worth discussion.
Third, Robinson is almost perfect at using pathos throughout his speech from the beginning through to the end. Part of his introduction contains emotionally-charged phrases aimed at attracting the audience’s sympathy. Robinson asserts that: “If you are at a dinner party, and you say you work in education; you're not often at dinner parties, frankly [Laughter]; if you work in education, you are not asked (Robinson 01:10-01:15). The example invokes the sympathy of the crowd concerning educationalists. In essence, education has lost its value among the world’s elites. Further, contrasting his cooking habits to his wife’s, Robinson notes that unlike him, “if she’s cooking, she’s dealing with people on the phone, she’s talking to the kids, she’s painting the ceiling (13:18).” This instance, though unrelated to education, aims at locking in the crowd in response to shared beliefs and values about men and women. It acts as a successful way of appealing to his audience’s attention.
Also related to pathos is Robinson’s mature way of using humor to appease the audience. Talking about William Shakespeare’s father, Robinson jokes: “Go to bed, now! And put the pencil downand stop speaking like that; it is confusing everybody (07:14-07:30).” Robinson uses humor to show the challenges that children currently face from the society when trying to develop their creativity. Notably, William Shakespeare would not have been one of the world’s greatest literal minds had the education system killed his creativity. The audience seems to have gotten the joke and its meaning because they laugh in between the punch lines. The idea works well from the introduction through to the end of the speech giving Robinson’s topic the seriousness it deserves.
Finally, Robinson concludes his speech through a displayed emotionally appeal to his audience aimed at their self-interests and identity. He attains this goal by revealing some of the effects the audience could experience if they allow the education system to continue killing creativity. He also offers a solution by encouraging the audience to follow the likes of TED Talk to help in filling the void. Robinson poses that: “We have to be careful now that we use this gift [creativity] wisely and that we avert some of the scenarios that we’ve talked about (18:33).” This final persuasiveness shows how Robinson successfully challenges the audience into taking up a role to help protect and develop creativity. He also states that: “And our job is to educate their whole being so that they can face this future; and our job is to help them make something of it (Robinson 18:33).” These statements solicit the feeling of self-responsibility within the audience. They form a persuasive effort that will linger with the audience because they will follow the direction that best fits their children’s needs.
In conclusion, Robinson effectively utilizes rhetorical tools in his speech to persuade the audience that education kills creativity. He establishes credibility by demonstrating his scholarly level as well as expertise in the topic to show authority in a non-intimidating manner. Second, Robinson also uses the power of logos by citing a series of statistics as well as ideological progressions. Lastly, the most significant part of this speech is the use of emotionally-charged phrases aimed at attracting the audience’s sympathy, identity, and self-interest.
Work Cited
Robinson, Ken. "TED Talk: Do schools kill creativity?" Febuary 2006. TED. Web. 20 April 2016.<https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity?language=en>.
