martes, septiembre 26, 2006

Un nuevo sistema educativo para la creatividad

En varias ocasiones he ido diciendo que hacen falta nuevos sistemas educativos: aquí, aquí, aquí , aquí, aquí, aquí, aquí, aquí, aquí y aquí.
Pues ahora hago una reseña de la charla que impartió Ken Robinson en los TedTalks, y que estuvo relacionada con la innovación y la educación:

Nuestro sistema educativo fue inventado por y para la sociedad industrial, donde las cosas que nos gustaban de pequeño relacionadas con la creatividad (música, pintura, arte,...) tenían poco sentido, puesto que eran contraproducentes para ser un operario industrial.
Our education system is predicated on the idea of academic ability. And there’s a reason. The whole system was invented round the world — there were no public systems of education, really, before the 19th century. They all came into being to meet the needs of industrialism. So, the hierarchy is raised on two ideas: number one, that the most useful subjects for work are at the top. So you were probably steered benignly away from things at school when you were a kid, things you liked, on the grounds you would never get a job doing that. Is that right? Don’t do music, you’re not going to be a musician; don’t do art, you won’t be an artist. Benign advice. Now, profoundly mistaken. The whole world is engulfed in a revolution. And the second is, academic ability, which has really come to dominate our view of intelligence, because the universities designed the system in their image. If you think of it, the whole system of public education around the world is a protracted process of university entrance. And the consequence is that many highly talented, brilliant, creative people think they’re not, because the thing they were good at school wasn’t valued or was actually stigmatized. And I think we can’t afford to go on that way.

El sistema educativo tiene el ámbito artístico en su base, el lugar más abajo de valoración, en lugar de en su cúspide.
Sir Robinson talked about public education system and the idea that we educate our children out of their creativity. He points out that public education throughout the world is organized hierarchically - with arts at the bottom. Sir Robinson suggests that we need to change our educational system and begin to educate children's whole beings. We need to honor creativity and the arts. We need to honor all the ways children learn and honor all of their talents - not just the left-brained academic talents.

La creatividad es tan importante como la lengua.
My contention is that creativity now is as important in education as literacy. And we should treat it with the same status.

Los niños no tienen miedo a equivocarse.
What these things have in common [two stories he told] is that kids will take a chance. If they don’t know, they’ll have a go. They’re not frightened of being wrong.

Si no estás preparado para equivocarte, nunca podrás hacer nada original.
Now, I’m not saying that being wrong is the same thing as being creative. What we do know is that If you’re not prepared to be wrong, you’ll never come up with anything original.

En las empresas se estigmatizan los errores.
And by the time they get to be adults, most kids have lost that capacity. They have become frightened of being wrong. And we run our companies this [way], by the way, we stigmatize mistakes.

Nuestro sistema educativo castiga los errores, por lo que estamos educando a gente que está fuera de sus capacidades creativas.
And we’re now running national education systems where mistakes are the worst things you can make. And the result is that we are educating people out of their creative capacities.

Picasso dijo que los niños nacen artistas. El problema es mantenerlos como artistas al mismo tiempo que están creciendo.
Picasso once said that all children are born artists. The problem is to remain an artist as we grow up. I believe this passionately that we don’t grow into creativity, that we grow out of it. Or rather we get educated out of it.

Los niños dicen “hagámoslo y aprenderemos cosas nuevas".
He began by citing three themes he'd heard over the past several days: 1) there is substantial evidence of human creativity; 2) we have no idea what's going to happen in the future; 3) we have a great deal of faith in children, all of whom have a great deal of talent which we squander. Robinson's belief: teaching kids to take advantage of their own creativity is as crucial as teaching literacy. Because kids aren't afraid to be wrong, they will, "give it a go" and learn new things. Over time, however, we, "grow out of our creativity." (Reminds me of a story I heard a while ago about an university art teacher talking with his seven year old daughter. She asked him what he did for a living and he said, "I teach people to draw." To which, she said, "you mean they forget?") Robinson's goal: to reverse the industrial-age-based educational priorities and recognize the diverse/dynamic intelligence needed to succeed today. Big idea: providing education for creativity now falls on corporations because it's been ignored by academics.

¿Por qué el ballet y la danza no deberían ser tan importantes como las matemáticas?
"Why shouldn't dance be as important as mathematics?"

Si le dices a la gente que trabajas en el mundo educativo, salen disparados. En cambio, si les preguntas sobre su propia educación, no se cansarían de hablar, ya que tiene un enorme impacto sobre todos nosotros.
If you tell people you work in education, they run away rather than having to talk to you. But ask people about their own education, and they’ll talk your ear off. Education has an enormous impact on us. And it’s a difficult task, because we’re preparing children for a future that we cannot possibly predict.

El sistema educativo pretende reproducir profesores universitarios.
Everywhere on earth, mathematics and languages are on top, humanities in the middle and arts on the bottom in the academic hierarchy. Within the arts, visual art and music are on top, dance is on the very bottom. “As children grow, we educate them from the waist up. And then just the head, with a focus on one side of it.” He argues that the purpose of public education is the reproduction of university professors, a species that “live in their heads.. and slightly to one side.”

Para trabajar en las fábricas, no hacía falta ser músico, por lo que esto era infravalorado por el sistema educativo. Hoy en día hay que repensar el concepto de inteligencia, yendo más allá de la inteligencia académica.
All public education systems came into place to meet the needs of industrialism, coming into play in the 19th century. As a factory worker, you certainly don’t need to become a musician, and so it’s devalued throughout the educational process. But this is changing radically - suddenly “degrees aren’t worth anything.” Academic inflation - you now need an MA or a PhD, not a BA for a job - suggests that we need to radically rethink about our view of intelligence, valuing more than just academic intelligence.

Una joven fue diagnosticada como hiperactiva, con problemas por la falta de atención, ya que ella no se concentraba en sus clases. Pero un psicólogo especialista en educación dijo que no estaba enferma, sino que era una bailarina en potencia.
Telling us a story about a famous ballerina, Robinson tells us that the young woman, these days, would likely be diagnosed as having ADHD, as she didn’t concentrate in her classes. Taken to see an educational specialist, the psychologist was smart enough to leave the room, turn on the radio, and let the young girl dance. He told her parents, “Jilien isn’t sick - she’s a dancer”. She went on to a dance school, joined the Royal Ballet and has choreographed most of Andrew Lloyd Weber’s musicals. Nowadays, we would give her medication and tell her to calm down.

El objetivo de Robinson es detectar la inteligencia de los niños y ayudarles a hacer algo con ella.
Robinson’s goal is to help us recognize the intelligence children actually have and help them make something of it.

¿Qué te ha parecido todo esto? Yo me lo he encontrado personalmente, ya que toco el clarinete y amigos míos son músicos profesionales/profesores de música. Siempre se han preguntado el porqué los Conservatorios de Música no estaban integrados dentro del concepto de Universidad.

2 comentarios:

El Guerrero dijo...

Magnífico artículo.
Creo que las cosas están cambiando, y cada vez más la empresa necesita de mentes creativas e innovadoras. Veáse las bases del éxito de Google, como ejemplo.
He escrito algo sobre ello, referenciando tu artículo en

Juan Francisco Martínez Cerdá dijo...

Gracias por tu reseña, Antonio.
Yo creo que las cosas cambian demasiado poco a poco a nivel general, y que son muy poco promocionados los lugares en los que los cambios, y sobre todo sus beneficios, funcionan.
En realidad, estos sitios podrían actuar como "palancas", pero creo que no están suficientemente valorados, porque son, de alguna manera, "antisistema"
Me gusta el ejemplo que comentas en tu post: es esperanzador.