TED 学校扼杀了我们的创造力

第一篇：TED 学校扼杀了我们的创造力

TED演讲：学校扼杀了我们的创造力

本视频网易公开课链接：http://v.163.com/movie/2006/2/V/E/M7SP3QUET_M7SP3T0VE.html

What are you have is a person of extraodinary dedication who found a talent.We've all agreed on the really extraordinary capacity that children have, their capacities for innovation.And my contention is, all kids have tremendous talents and we squander them, pretty ruthlessly.So I want to talk about education and creativity.My contention is that creativity now is as important in education as literacy, and we should treat it with the same status.现在的教育提倡的是一个有风险精神的 老师能发现一个天才学生。我们一致认同，孩子拥有超凡的才能，或者说创新能力。我认为：每个孩子身上都蕴含着巨大的才能，却被成人无情地磨灭了。因此，我想谈谈教育和创造力。我相信在当今这个时代，创造力在教育中的地位同读写能力一样重要，理应得到同等程度的重视。

I heard a great story recently, I love telling it, of a six-year-old girl who was in a drawing lesson.The teacher said usually this little girl hardly paid attention, but in this drawing lesson she did.The teacher was fascinated and she went over to her and said, “What are you drawing?” and the girl said, “I'm drawing a picture of God.” And the teacher said, “But nobody knows what God looks like.” And the girl said, “They will in a minute.”

前些日子我听到了一个很棒的故事，我喜欢逢人就讲。有个6岁的小姑娘在上绘画课。她的老师说，这个小姑娘上课一向不怎么专心，而这次却不同。老师很好奇，于是走过去问小姑娘：“你在画什么？”“我在画上帝”，小姑娘答道。老师不解：“可是从来没有人知道上帝长什么样啊！”小姑娘答道：“等我画好他们就知道了。”

Picasso once said that all children are born artists.The problem is remaining an artist as we grow up.I believe passionately that we don't grow into creativity, we grow out of it.Or rather we get educated out of it.So why is this?

毕加索曾经说过：每一个孩子都是天生的艺术家。问题在于我们长大之后能否继续保持着艺术家的个性。我坚信，随着年龄的增长，我们的创造力并非与日俱增，反而是与日俱减。甚至可以说，我们的创造力被教育扼杀了。怎么会这样呢？

Every education system on earth has the same hierarchy of subjects—every one;it doesn't matter where you go, you'd think it would be otherwise but it isn't.At the top are mathematics and languages, then the humanities, and the bottom are the arts.Everywhere on earth.There isn't an education system on the planet that teaches dance every day to children the way we teach them mathematics.Why? Why not? I think this is rather important.I think maths is very important but so is dance.Children dance all the time if they're allowed to, we all do.We all have bodies, don't we? Truthfully what happens is, as children grow up we start to educate them progressively from the waist up.And then we focus on their heads.And slightly to one side.世界上所有的教育系统都有着相同的学科体系，无一例外。你会想肯定有某个地方会例外的吧，可是无论你走到哪都是这样。位于顶端的是数学和语言，接着是人文学科，处在最底端的是艺术。全球普遍如此。在这颗星球上没有一个教育系统会像上数学课一样天天给孩子们上舞蹈课。为什么？为什么不这样？我觉得这非常重要。我知道数学很重要，但是舞蹈也同样重要啊。如果获得允许，孩子们可以整天跳舞，我们也是。我们都有身体可以舞动起来，不是吗？现实中的真相是：随着孩子们在长大，大人们开始逐步地训练他们，首先是腰部以上的部位，然后是集中训练他们的大脑，并且渐渐地有点偏向大脑一侧。

If you were to visit education as an alien and say what's it for, public education, I think you'd have to conclude(if you look at the output, who really succeeds by this, who does everything they should, who gets all the brownie points, who are the winner the whole purpose of public education throughout the world is to produce university professors.Isn't it? They're the people who come out on top.And I used to be one, so there.And I like university professors, but you know, we shouldn't hold them up as the high-water mark of all human achievement.They're just a form of life, another form of life.But they're rather curious and I say this out of affection for them, there's something curious about them, not all of them but typically, they live in their heads, they live up there, and slightly to one side.They're disembodied.They look upon their bodies as a form of transport for their heads, don't they?

假设你是一位外星来客，来考察地球上的教育，想知道公共教育究竟有何作用。在得出结论之前，我建议你先看看公共教育的产物，看看究竟是谁通过教育获得成功？是谁中规中矩地完成了使命？是谁得到了所有的赞许？又是谁成了最后的赢家？我想你会由此得出结论：全球公共教育的目的完全在于培养大学教授，不是吗？他们是教育体制最高端的产物。我过去也曾是其中一员，嗯，我喜欢大学教授们。不过，你知道，我们不应该将他们推崇为全人类最大的成就。他们所代表的仅仅是一种生活方式，另一种不同的生活方式。不过大学教授们还是蛮古怪的，我是出于对他们的喜爱才这么说的，虽然不是所有大学教授都这样，但他们的确有些奇特，典型表现为：他们生活在自己的思维里，住在自己的大脑中，而且还略偏向于大脑一侧。他们崇尚精神世界，躯体在他们看来不过是思维的承载工具，不是吗？

In the next 30 years, according to UNESCO, more people worldwide will be graduating through education than since the beginning of history.More people, and it's the combination of all the things we've talked about—technology and its transformation effect on work, and demography and the huge explosion in population.Suddenly degrees aren't worth anything.Isn't that true? When I was a student, if you had a degree, you had a job.If you didn't have a job it's because you didn't want one.And I didn't want one, frankly.But now kids with degrees are often heading home to carry on playing video games, because you need an MA where the previous job required a BA, and now you need a PhD for the other.It's a process of academic inflation.And it indicates the whole structure of education is shifting beneath our feet.We need to radically rethink our view of intelligence.根据联合国教科文组织的统计预测，未来三十年内全球的教育系统毕业生人数将达到历史之最。高科技及其对工作性质的改变影响，人口以及人口大爆炸，这些我们提及过的因素加在一起将导致毕业生越来越多。学历突然缩水了。难道不是吗？我上学那会儿，只要你有一纸文凭，你就有饭碗。如果你没有工作，那是因为你不想要。坦白说，我当时就不想要（作者的自嘲）。可现在有学历的毕业生们却常常待业在家打游戏，因为工作岗位的学历要求都升级了，过去需要学士的岗位现在开始要硕士了，过去要硕士的岗位现在要博士了。这是个“学历膨胀”的过程。这一过程说明了整个教育体系正在我们眼下经历着重大转变。我们需要从根本上重新审视自己的智能观。

We know three things about intelligence: One, it's diverse.We think about the world in all the ways we experience it.We think visually, we think in sound, we think kinesthetically.We think in abstract terms, we think in movement.我们知道智能有三大特点：第一，智能具有多元性。我们运用各种体验方式来认知世界，比如视觉、听觉、触觉、抽象化、动态化等等。

Secondly, intelligence is dynamic.The brain isn't divided into compartments.In fact, creativity, which I define as the process of having original ideas that have value, more often than not comes about through the interaction of different disciplinary ways of seeing things.第二，智能具有交互性。大脑并不是由相互隔绝的单元组成的。事实上，创造活动往往就诞生于各学科看待事物的不同方式所产生的交互作用，在我看来，创造就是“有价值的原创思想的产生过程”。

And the third thing about intelligence is, it's distinct.I'm doing a new book at the moment called Epiphany which is based on a series of interviews with people about how they discovered their talent.I'm fascinated by how people got to be there.It's really prompted by a conversation I had with a wonderful woman who maybe most people have never heard of, Gillian Lynne.She's a choreographer.She did Cats, and Phantom of the Opera, she's wonderful.Gillian and I had lunch one day and I said, “Gillian, how'd you get to be a dancer?” And she said it was interesting, when she was at school, she was really hopeless.And the school, in the 30s, wrote her parents and said, “We think Gillian has a learning disorder.” She couldn't concentrate, she was fidgeting.第三，智能具有独特性。目前我正在写一本新书，叫做《悟》，是根据一系列人物访谈写成的，主题围绕“你是如何发现自己才能的？”。我对人们的自我发现很感兴趣。事实上，写这本书的念头源自我和一位出色的女士之间的对话，也许这里大部分人没有听说过她，她叫吉莉安·林恩，是一名舞蹈指导，曾经给歌舞剧《猫》、《歌剧魅影》编排舞蹈，非常棒的一位女士！有一天我和吉莉安一起吃午餐，我问她：“吉莉安，你当初是怎么走上跳舞这条路的？”她告诉我，其中的故事还蛮有趣的。当年她在学校时，大家都说她没得救了。那还是在上世纪三十年代，学校写信给她父母说“我们认为吉莉安有学习障碍”。那时候的她无法集中注意力，总是坐立不安。

Anyway, she went to see a specialist in an oak-paneled room with her mother and she sat on her hands for 20 minutes while this man talked to her mother about all the problems Gillian was having at school.In the end, the doctor went and sat next to Gillian and said, “Gillian I've listened to all these things that your mother's told me, and I need to speak to her privately.Wait here, we'll be back, we won't be very long,” and they went and left her.后来她妈妈就带着她去看专科。那是一间铺着橡木地板的诊室。吉莉安把双手压在屁股下，耐住性子坐了20分钟，这段时间里医生和她妈妈谈论了她在学校里出现的种种问题。最后，医生走过来坐在吉莉安身边对她说：“吉莉安，你妈妈和我讲了你的所有事情，现在我要和她私下谈谈。在这儿等着，我们很快就回来。”于是他们就留下她出去了。

But as they went out the room, he turned on the radio that was sitting on his desk, and when they got out the room, he said to her mother, “Just stand and watch her.” And the minute they left the room, she said, she was on her feet, moving to the music.And they watched for a few minutes and he turned to her mother and said, “Mrs.Lynne, Gillian isn't sick;she's a dancer.Take her to a dance school.” Somebody else might have put her on medication and told her to calm down.就在他们离开房间的时候，医生拧开了他桌上的收音机。走出房间后，医生对吉莉安的妈妈 4 说道：“就在这儿观察一下她”。吉莉安说，他们刚离开房间她就站了起来，随着音乐移动步子。在外面观察了几分钟后，那位医生转向她妈妈说道：“林恩夫人，吉莉安并没有生病，她是个天生的舞蹈家。送她去舞蹈学校吧。”（感谢当年那位医生，）换了别人或许会对吉莉安进行药物治疗，并告诉她要平静下来。

I believe our only hope for the future is to adopt a new conception of human ecology, one in which we start to reconstitute our conception of the richness of human capacity.Our education system has mined our minds in the way that we strip-mine the earth, for a particular commodity, and for the future, it won't serve us.我认为我们未来唯一的希望在于创设一种新的人文生态构想，唯有在此构想上才可重新认识到人类能力之丰富。如同获得商品的欲望驱使人类掠采矿物资源，现行的教育体制也正以此道压榨着我们的智力，而这种压榨并不能造福人类社会。

We have to rethink the fundamental principles on which we're educating our children.And our task is to educate their whole being, so they can face this future—by the way, we may not see this future, but they will.And our job is to help them make something of it.我们必须重新思考我们教育孩子的基本原则。我们的任务是教育所有的孩子，以便他们能够面对未来——顺便提一下，这个未来或许我们是看不见了，但是他们可以，我们的工作就是帮助他们战胜未来的挑战。

第二篇：中外教育对比 谁扼杀了孩子的创造力（推荐）

中外教育对比 谁扼杀了孩子的创造力

编者按：赵勇博士是美国密西根州立大学教授，多年致力于国际教育研究。2006年12月，他在“美国教育领导论坛”上发言，反思了学校和教育体制对学生创造力的影响。欢迎读者就此话题发表看法。

■孩子们的创造力是与生俱来的，而不是“教”出来的。

■现行的教育体制和学校强调并执行着统一的课程标准以及对学生统一的严格要求，缩小了学生之间的个性差异，同时也扼杀了创造力。

■不是因为美国学校比亚洲学校创造力教得好，只是美国学校扼杀学生创造力的程度没有亚洲学校那么深。

美国密西根州立大学教育学院教授 赵勇

创造力的差异是一个复杂的现象，这种差异是由于后天的文化和环境的影响所致，而不是“先天”就有的。美国和亚洲国家目前在创造力方面有差距的原因可能归咎于：亚洲国家传统文化和现有的教育体制更多地扼杀了孩子的创造潜能，而美国的文化和现有的教育体制对孩子创造力的扼杀没有那么多。

具有创造力潜能的孩子生活在不同寻常的家庭和环境中

具有创新潜能的人经常在观念、行为、信仰以及生活方式等方面与常人不同，并偏离传统的要求。一项“社会和环境对创造力的影响”的研究显示，在一定范围内偏离传统和正常行为的人往往会产生更多创新的想法。那些具有创新能力的孩子的家庭，通常在家中对孩子没有什么规定和约束；相反，在一般的家庭中，通常对孩子的规定和约束达6项之多。具有创造力潜能的孩子生活在不同寻常的家庭和环境中，这些家庭的父母在孩子幼年期就鼓励他们与众不同的思维和生活方式。在美国这样鼓励个人发展的文化环境中，创造力被认为是个人独特的表现，受到社会的尊重；而集体主义文化环境强调传统和继承，不提倡或不允许违背传统的行为和想法产生。研究还发现，因为学校总是要求学生符合统一的标准以及服从纪律，目前学校对孩子创造力的发展并没有产生重大的积极影响，反而抑制或扼杀了孩子们的创造力。大多数孩子天生都是好奇并具有很强想象力的，但是经过一段时间学校生活的训练，他们就会变得更谨慎，更缺乏创新意识。教师、同伴和教育体制的影响，大大减弱了孩子们表现他们潜在创造力的激情。

当然，学校要求学生符合统一的标准和服从纪律也有充分的理由，因为学校的任务就是为社会培养遵纪守法的公民。学校的教师也要求最好一个班的学生都能保持一致的知识水平，以便能够实施统一的教学。学生也必须服从一定的规定以便适应学校的要求。这样，所有的学校都不可避免地要扼杀学生的创造性，以达到对学生实施统一教育目标的要求。

孩子的创造潜能在进入学校的最初阶段就被扼杀了

亚洲学生和美国学生存在创造力的差异。首先，美国孩子在学校的时间远远少于亚洲国家的孩子，大多数亚洲国家的孩子往往视学校为生活的中心，而很多美国孩子不会把学校看成是他们生活的中心。总的来说，美国孩子暴露在扼杀创造力的机器———学校面前的时间较少。

其次，严格的纪律和统一的标准要求压制了创造力的发展。亚洲国家的教师经常表扬那些在课堂上能够遵守纪律的孩子。在孩子进入小学的头几个月里，教师通过自己的言行教会孩子们在集体中相处的技巧和技能。另外，亚洲国家的教师对学生的要求也多于美国的教师。

再次，美国的家长和教育工作者对孩子成功的定义更宽泛一些，特别强调孩子的个性发展，他们认为尊重孩子的愿望和能力发展才是最重要的。美国的家长和学校对学生学习成绩的要求和学业期望都比较低，因而经常受到教育改革家们的指责和批评。一项研究显示：美国的母亲对孩子在学校的表现和学习成绩的满意程度要高于中国和日本的家长。学业上的成功，取得高分数固然很重要，但对个人创造力的发展不是至关重要的因素，成绩更多地是在取悦他人。过多或是仅仅关注那些学习成绩和考试分数等表面成功的指标，只能给孩子更多的压力。然而，亚洲国家的很多家长特别重视表面的指标，学生的成功与否是根据考试成绩以及能否进入好的大学来衡量的，而诸如艺术、音乐、社会活动、体育等活动都被认为是不重要的，除非是学生想要凭借这些方面的特长进入更好的高校。这种取向导致孩子们的创造潜能在进入学校的最初阶段就被扼杀了。

对于成功的宽泛定义和强调学业成功其实并不矛盾，二者的结合不仅能够保护并保持孩子们的个性和创造性，而且也可以保护孩子们对学习的兴趣和积极性，从而获得好成绩。

最后，统一的标准和统一的课程是亚洲国家教育体系的特点，而这种方式只能进一步缩小个性差异，对所有的学生以统一的标准来要求，一致的教学进度、一样的教学顺序、使用同样的教科书，这样留给学生们发展个人兴趣空间，以及适应不同学习方式的机会都很小。正是这样的教育体制、教学方式，正是这样的学校扼杀了孩子们的创造潜能。

创造力不是教出来的，学习的内在动机对发挥创造力特别重要

美国家长对孩子成功的概念定义得很宽泛，而且很少强调那些外部指标，允许学生去“感觉很好”，即使他们在其他方面所花费的时间和力气超过学科学习方面，也鼓励他们去做。这些鼓励，能够使孩子们继续保持他们自己的兴趣，并且因此也保留了一些学习的内在动机，而这些内在动机对创造力来说特别重要。相反，亚洲国家的家长和教育体制强调外部指标，并且外界对学生都有很高的期望值，导致学生缺乏自信或动机表面化，这些对创造力的发展都是很不利的。

根据布朗中心2006年美国教育报告，在“快乐程度对学生学习的影响”的国际数学学习比较研究中发现了一个有趣的悖论现象：亚洲国家的八年级学生在TIMSS（TheTrendsinInternationalMathematicsandScienceStudy国际数学和科学评测趋势的缩写）数学测试中成绩很高，但对数学学习有自信心的人数比例却很低，韩国是6%，日本只有4%；美国学生在同样的数学测试中成绩不太高，但对数学学习有自信心的学生达39%，另外一些在TIMSS数学测试中成绩很低的国家，比如约旦，学生对数学学习的自信心却达到了48%。在不同国家的数据比较中可以看到，自信心与学习成绩呈反比例。当孩子们长大成人进入到劳动大军行列时，亚洲国家的年轻人比美国的年轻人表现出对表面的奖励更感兴趣。例如，最近在一项价值观调查中发现，当回答“你选择工作时侧重哪些方面”的问题时，82%的美国年轻人回答是自己最感兴趣的工作，而只有18%的中国年轻人这样回答，形成了鲜明的对比。超过42%的美国学生选择在找工作时，将“做一个重要的工作”作为第一选择，而只有23%的中国学生作出这样的选择。

创造力不是教出来的，但是创造力可能被扼杀。美国和亚洲国家创造力差异的存在，不是因为美国学校比亚洲学校创造力教得好，只是美国学校扼杀学生创造力的程度没有亚洲学校那么深。

当然，创造力不是一切，科学创新还必须以牢固的知识为基础。并不是那种让孩子们为所欲为的教育体系就是成功的，而恰恰相反，系统、深入、严格的学习训练对于每一个想要在生活中成功的人都是必需的。但是这种学习一定不要禁锢在有限的学科学习中，学校不要只重视在某些学科表现突出的天才学生，还要考虑到大多数学生创造潜能的发挥。因为每一个人具有不同的创造潜能和才能，具有不同的思维特点。（本文由正在密西根州立大学做访问学者的北京师范大学王安琳博士编译）

第三篇：我就这样扼杀了学生的创造力[小编推荐]

老师，松开你扼杀学生创造力的手吧！

看到书上说电视里的一个谈话节目，主持人谈及一个幽默。他说，联合国某组织在全球各大洲的儿童中搞了一个调查——“请谈一谈对其他国家粮食短缺问题的独特看法。”结果是各大洲的儿童居然都因为无法理解这个问题而不能回答。欧洲的孩子不能回答是因为不知道什么是“短缺”，非洲的孩子不能回答是因为不知道什么叫“粮食”、美国的孩子不能回答是因为不知道什么叫“其他国家”，而中国孩子不能回答是因为不知道什么叫“独特看法”„„主持人话落，满座笑起。

而我作为一个教育工作者看了这段话，却不能一笑了之。我想起自己的教学，不禁感到无比的惭愧。可以说正是像我这样的教师把中国学生的创造力扼杀了。在我短短几年的教学生涯中，我不知做了多少扼杀学生创造力的事。至今仍记忆犹新的一件事是这样的：

那天我正在教学郑振铎的《燕子》一课，课文中有一幅插图，描绘了几只黑乎乎的燕子三三两两地停息在五根电线上。观察插图时，我让学生发散想象：你觉得它们在干什么？有的学生说：它们在说话；有的说它们在聊天；有的说它们快乐地谈天说地„„其实学生们说的大都是表达燕子在谈话。这时，一个平时很调皮的男孩站起来说：老师，它们在快乐地弹琴（谈情）。话音刚落，全班哄堂大笑，对四年级的学生来说，似乎谈情很暧昧。当时我真是觉得这个学生有点故意捣乱，于是板下脸说道：就是你会瞎说。坐下。但那孩子又站起来坚

持他的观点：老师，我真的觉得它们在弹琴。你看，它们不像在弹一把竖琴吗？他边说边做弹竖琴的示范动作。

多么有创意的想法！多么有个性的想象！这时，我才恍然大悟我错得有多离谱。我多么感谢这个孩子的厚脸皮，他一而再地发表自己的意见、坚持自己的观点，才让我的罪过不那么重。我也反省自己平时的教学，这样扼杀学生创造力的行为比比皆是。

还记得我们学校有一个同学参加作文比赛，四年级组作文比赛的题目是半命题作文：

的。可以写事、写人、写景、写物，内容不限。这个同学写了如下一篇作文

我的同桌

在我的旁边有一位默默无闻的小女孩。她个子不高，总是扎着两个小辫子；一双大大的眼睛可迷人了，发起火来，两只眼睛瞪得大大的，那样子可真令人看了害怕。

她虽然长得很漂亮，可她在学习上却一点也不用功，作业总是最后几个交。有一次，老师让大家在吃午饭前抄好一段课文。别人一下课都开始认真地抄写，一会儿便把老师布置的作业工工整整地写完了。让我们再来看看她吧。瞧，她还在跳皮筋呢，看来跳得很开心，似乎把老师布置的作业都写完了。上午第三节课结束后，大家都排着整齐的队伍回家吃饭了。只有她一个人坐在教室里，用她那双大大的眼睛侦察着是否有人还没走，看来是准备逃走吧。吃过午饭，大家都拿着自己抄的课文去给老师批。过了一会儿，老师对大家说：“同学们都给我批了吧，现在大家出去玩一会儿吧。”其实，老师知道还有一个人没给她批，我想大家都知道她是谁吧？她就是我的同桌。不过她也明白老师的意思，低下了头，脸涨得通红，好象很后悔的样子。

我的同桌虽然平时不太说话，其实她非常凶，在班级里有“野蛮女生”这样一个称号。就说那一次吧，那一天，老师叫每人带一枝钢笔，说明天要举行钢笔字比赛。可到了比赛那一天，她没带，急得像热锅上的蚂蚁。她在没上课前向同学借，可同学平时都吃尽了她的苦头，都不愿借给她。终于到了上课的时间，她不得不坐到自己的座位上，这时她的心里更急了。就在她着急时，她看见了我有两枝钢笔，便问我借，我没有借给她。你们不要

说我没良心，而是我和同学们一样，受够了她的气。比赛终于开始了，老师见她没带钢笔，便狠狠地教训了她一顿，她恨得咬牙切齿。下课后，我知道情况不妙，便马上就跑，可她拦在了我的前面。看来这一顿骂是免不了的了，谁叫她是“野蛮女生”呢？

我的同桌呀，请你不要那么凶，请温柔点，成为我们班一个又漂亮又温柔的小女孩。

这篇作文被几个评委老师打了低分，理由是“思想性不好”。该名学生也因为作文写得不好，在同学面前难为情得抬不起头。我翻来覆去地看他的作文，看不出他的作文思想性不好在什么地方；我翻遍了有关学生作文的理论书，找不到一点能说这篇作文思想性不好的理由。难道仅仅是因为他写了他同桌的缺点？仅仅是因为他说了真话？仅仅是因为他没有造假？

在我看来，这位同学对他的同桌提出了善意的建议，让她认识到自己的缺点，文笔那么幽默、风趣，感情那么真诚、自然，这难道不是一种独特、一种个性、一种创新吗？这篇文章不但选准了体现同桌特点的事例，而且这些事例是他从鲜活的生活中提取出来的，带着浓浓的生活味，才那么的鲜活有生命力，让人读之有味。一个漂亮、凶悍但又不爱学习、懒惰的小女孩活灵活现地出现在我们面前。这难道不是一种“独特看法”？一种“独特视角”吗？

正是因为有了这样的课堂、有了这样扼杀学生创造力的老师，才有了前面谈话节目中那样的中国学生。作为我们教育工作者，真的应该好好地反思一下，松开我们扼杀学生创造力的手吧！让我们的孩子懂得创新、懂得个性、懂得什么叫“独特看法”！

第四篇：学校扼杀了学生的创造力？Ken Robinson Ted英语演讲视频中英字幕,英语文本（共）

演讲稿英语文本：

Good morning.How are you? It's been great, hasn't it? I've been blown away by the whole thing.In fact, I'm leaving.There have been three themes, haven't there, running through the conference, which are relevant to what I want to talk about.One is the extraordinary evidence of human creativity in all of the presentations that we've had and in all of the people here.Just the variety of it and the range of it.The second is, that it's put us in a place where we have no idea what's going to happen, in terms of the future, no idea how this may play out.I have an interest in education--actually, what I find is, everybody has an interest in education;don't you? I find this very interesting.If you're at a dinner party, and you say you work in education--actually, you're not often at dinner parties, frankly, if you work in education, you're not asked.And you'll never ask back, curiously.That's strange to me.But if you are, and you say to somebody, you know, they say, “What do you do,” and you say you work in education, you can see the blood run from their face.They're like, “Oh my god,” you know, “why me? My one night out all week.” But if you ask people about their education, they pin you to the wall.Because it's one of those things that goes deep with people, am I right?, like religion, and money, and other things.I have a big interest in education, and I think we all do, we have a huge vested interest in it, partly because it's education that's meant to take us into this future that we can't grasp.If you think of it, children starting school this year will be retiring in 2065.Nobody has a clue, despite all the expertise that's been on parade for the past four days, what the world will look like in five years' time.And yet we're meant to be educating them for it.So the unpredictability, I think, is extraordinary.And the third part of this is that we've all agreed nonetheless on the really extraordinary capacity that children have, their capacities for innovation.I mean, Sirena last night was a marvel, wasn't she, just seeing what she could do.And she's exceptional, but I think she's not, so to speak, exceptional in the whole of childhood.What you have there is a person of extraordinary dedication who found a talent.And my contention is, all kids have tremendous talents and we squander them, pretty ruthlessly.So I want to talk about education and I want to talk about creativity.My contention is that creativity now is as important in education as literacy, and we should treat it with the same status.[applause] Thank you.That was it, by the way, thank you very much.Soooo, 15 minutes left.Well, I was born.I heard a great story recently, I love telling it, of a little girl who was in a drawing lesson, she was 6 and she was at the back, drawing, and the teacher said this little girl hardly paid attention, and in this drawing lesson she did.The teacher was fascinated and she went over to her and she said, “What are you drawing?” and the girl said, “I'm drawing a picture of God.” And the teacher said, “But nobody knows what God looks like.” And the girl said, “They will in a minute.”

When my son was 4 in England--actually he was 4 everywhere, to be honest;if we're being strict about it, wherever he went, he was 4 that year--he was in the nativity play.Do you remember the story? No, it was big, it was a big story.Mel Gibson did the sequel, you may have seen it, “Nativity II.” But James got the part of Joseph, which we were thrilled about.We considered this to be one of the lead parts.We had the place crammed full of agents in T-shirts: “James Robinson IS Joseph!” He didn't have to speak, but you know the bit where the three kings come in.They come in bearing gifts, and they bring gold, frankincense and myrrh.This really happened--we were sitting there and we think they just went out of sequence, we talked to the little boy afterward and we said, “You OK with that” and he said “Yeah, why, was that wrong?”--they just switched, I think that was it.Anyway, the three boys came in, little 4-year-olds with tea towels on their heads, and they put these boxes down, and the first boy said, “I bring you gold.” The second boy said, “I bring you myrhh.” And the third boy said, “Frank sent this.”

What these things have in common is that kids will take a chance.If they don't know, they'll have a go.Am I right? They're not frightened of being wrong.Now, I don't mean to say that being wrong is the same thing as being creative.What we do know is, if you're not prepared to be wrong, you'll never come up with anything original.If you're not prepared to be wrong.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 like this, by the way, we stigmatize mistakes.And we're now running national education systems where mistakes are the worst thing you can make.And the result is, we are educating people out of their creative capacities.Picasso once said this, he 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, we grow out of it.Or rather we get educated out of it.So why is this?

I lived in Stratford-on-Avon until about five years ago, in fact we moved from Stratford to Los Angeles, so you can imagine what a seamless transition this was.Actually we lived in a place called Snitterfield, just outside Stratford, which is where Shakespeare's father was born.Were you struck by a new thought? I was.You don't think of Shakespeare having a father, do you? Do you? Because you don't think of Shakespeare being a child, do you? Shakespeare being 7? I never thought of it.I mean, he was 7 at some point;he was in somebody's English class, wasn't he? How annoying would that be? “Must try harder.” Being sent to bed by his dad, you know, to Shakespeare, “Go to bed, now,” to William Shakespeare, “and put the pencil down.And stop speaking like that.It's confusing everybody.”

Anyway, we moved from Stratford to Los Angeles, and I just want to say a word about the transition, actually.My son didn't want to come.I've got two kids, he's 21 now, my daughter's 16;he didn't want to come to Los Angeles.He loved it, but he had a girlfriend in England.This was the love of his life, Sarah.He'd known her for a month.Mind you, they'd had their fourth anniversary, because it's a long time when you're 16.Anyway, he was really upset on the plane, and he said, “I'll never find another girl like Sarah.” And we were rather pleased about that, frankly, because she was the main reason we were leaving the country.But something strikes you when you move to America and when you travel around the world: every education system on earth has the same hierarchy of subjects.Every one, doesn't matter where you go, you'd think it would be otherwise but it isn't.At the top are mathematics and languages, then the humanities, and the bottom are the arts.Everywhere on earth.And in pretty much every system too, there's a hierarchy within the arts.Art and music are nomally given a higher status in schools than drama and dance.There isn't an education system on the planet that teaches dance every day to children the way we teach them mathematics.Why? Why not? I think this is rather important.I think maths is very important but so is dance.Children dance all the time if they're allowed to, we all do.We all have bodies, don't we? Did I miss a meeting?

Truthfully what happens is, as children grow up we start to educate them progressively from the waist up.And then we focus on their heads.And slightly to one side.If you were to visit education as an alien and say what's it for, public education, I think you'd have to conclude, if you look at the output, who really succeeds by this, who does everything they should, who gets all the brownie points, who are the winners。I think you'd have to conclude the whole purpose of public education throughout the world is to produce university professors.Isn't it.They're the people who come out the top.And I used to be one, so there.And I like university professors, but you know, we shouldn't hold them up as the high-water mark of all human achievement.They're just a form of life, another form of life.but they're rather curious and I say this out of affection for them, there's something curious about them, not all of them but typically, they live in their heads, they live up there, and slightly to one side.They're disembodied.They look upon their bodies as a form of transport for their heads, don't they? It's a way of getting their head to meetings.If you want real evidence of out-of-body experiences, by the way, get yourself along to a residential conference of senior academics, and pop into the discotheque on the final night, and there you will see it, grown men and women writhing uncontrollably, off the beat, waiting until it ends so they can go home and write a paper about it.Now 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 rooted 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 that 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're not going to 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 at school wasn't valued, or was actually stigmatized.And I think we can't afford to go on that way.In the next 30 years.according to UNESCO, more people worldwide will be graduating through education than since the beginning of history.More people, and it's the combination of all the things we've talked about--technology and its transformation effect on work, and demography and the huge explosion in population.Suddenly degrees aren't worth anything.Isn't that true?

When I was a student, if you had a degree, you had a job.If you didn't have a job it's because you didn't want one.And I didn't want one, frankly.But now kids with degrees are often heading home to carry on playing video games, because you need an MA where the previous job required a BA, and now you need a PhD for the other.It's a process of academic inflation.And it indicates the whole structure of education is shifting beneath our feet.We need to radically rethink our view of intelligence.We know three things about intelligence:

One, it's diverse, we think about the world in all the ways we experience it.We think visually, we think in sound, we think kinesthetically.We think in abstract terms, we think in movement.Secondly, intelligence is dynamic.If you look at the interactions of a human brain, as we heard yesterday from a number of presentations, intelligence is wonderfully interactive.The brain isn't divided into compartments.In fact, creativity, which I define as the process of having original ideas that have value, more often than not comes about through the interaction of different disciplinary ways of seeing things.The brain is intentionally--by the way, there's a shaft of nerves that joins the two halves of the brain called the corpus collosum, and it's thicker in women.Following on from Helen yesterday, I think this is probably why women are better at multitasking, because you are, aren't you, there's a raft of research, but I know it from my personal life.If my wife is cooking a meal at home, which is not often, thankfully, but you know, she's doing(oh, she's good at some things)but if she's cooking, you know, she's dealing with people on the phone, she's talking to the kids, she's painting the ceiling, she's doing open-heart surgery over here;if I'm cooking, the door is shut, the kids are out, the phone's on the hook, if she comes in I get annoyed, I say “Terry, please, I'm trying to fry an egg in here, give me a break.”(You know that old philosophical thing, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, did it happen, remember that old chestnut, I saw a great T-shirt recently that said, “If a man speaks his mind in a forest, and no woman hears him, is he still wrong?”)

And the third thing about intelligence is, it's distinct.I'm doing a new book at the moment called Epiphany which is based on a series of interviews with people about how they discovered their talent.I'm fascinated by how people got to be there.It's really prompted by a conversation I had with a wonderful woman who maybe most people have never heard of, she's called Gillian Lynne, have you heard of her? Some have.She's a choreographer and everybody knows her work.She did Cats, and Phantom of the Opera, she's wonderful.I used to be on the board of the Royal Ballet, in England, as you can see, and Gillian and I had lunch one day and I said Gillian, how'd you get to be a dancer? And she said it was interesting, when she was at school, she was really hopeless.And the school, in the 30s, wrote her parents and said, “We think Gillian has a learning disorder.” She couldn't concentrate, she was fidgeting.I think now they'd say she had ADHD.Wouldn't you? But this was the 1930s and ADHD hadn't been invented at this point.It wasn't an available condition.People weren't aware they could have that.Anyway she went to see this specialist, in this oak-paneled room, and she was there with her mother and she was led and sat on a chair at the end, and she sat on her hands for 20 minutes while this doctor talked to her mother about all the problems Gillian was having at school.And at the end of it--because she was disturbing people, her homework was always late, and so on, little kid of 8--in the end, the doctor went and sat next to Gillian and said, “Gillian I've listened to all these things that your mother's told me, and I need to speak to her privately.” He said, “Wait here, we'll be back, we won't be very long,” and they went and left her.But as they went out the room, he turned on the radio that was sitting on his desk, and when they got out the room, he said to her mother, “Just stand and watch her.” And the minute they left the room, she said, she was on her feet, moving to the music.And they watched for a few minutes and he turned to her mother and said, “Mrs.Lynne, Gillian isn't sick;she's a dancer.Take her to a dance school.”

I said, “What happened?”

She said, “She did.I can't tell you how wonderful it was.We walked in this room and it was full of people like me, people who couldn't sit still.People who had to move to think.” Who had to move to think.They did ballet, they did tap, they did jazz, they did modern, they did contemporary.She was eventually auditioned for the Royal Ballet School, she became a soloist, she had a wonderful career at the Royal Ballet, she eventually graduated from the Royal Ballet School and founded her own company, the Gillian Lynne Dance Company, and met Andrew Lloyd Weber.She's been responsible for some of the most successful musical theater productions in history, she's given pleasure to millions, and she's a multimillionaire.Somebody else might have put her on medication and told her to calm down.Now, I think--[applause] What I think it comes to is this: Al Gore spoke the other night about ecology and the revolution that was triggered by Rachel Carson.I believe our only hope for the future is to adopt a new conception of human ecology, one in which we start to reconstitute our conception of the richness of human capacity.Our education system has mined our minds in the way that we strip-mine the earth, for a particular commodity, and for the future, it won't serve us.We have to rethink the fundamental principles on which we're educating our children.There was a wonderful quote by Jonas Salk, who said, “If all the insects were to disappear from the earth, within 50 years all life on earth would end.If all human beings disappeared from the earth, within 50 years all forms of life would flourish.” And he's right.What TED celebrates is the gift of the human imagination.We have to be careful now that we use this gift wisely, and that we avert some of the scenarios that we've talked about.And the only way we'll do it is by seeing our creative capacities for the richness they are, and seeing our children for the hope that they are.And our task is to educate their whole being, so they can face this future--by the way, we may not see this future, but they will.And our job is to help them make something of it.Thank you very much.

第五篇：撒谎作文扼杀了学生个性

撒谎作文扼杀了学生个性

类似作文看多了，我发现学生写作文从不考虑用自己的眼睛看周围，而是用别人的眼睛看世界，非常在意老师喜欢什么主题、评阅人接受什么题材等。

日前，中国青年报社社会调查中心通过问卷网对2002人进行的一项调查结果显示，90.6%的受访者觉得现在学生写作文“撒谎”的情况多，其中，31.8%的受访者觉得非常多。就我有限的见闻，这个调查结果是靠谱的。

学生作文“撒谎”一直就存在。几十年前，学生喜欢写保护集体财产的作文。我上小学时，班里有个同学写了一篇作文，说生产队一位贫农为保护堤坝，在暴雨天冒险打开水库的涵洞排水。这篇文章被老师当成范文，但我知道作者家附近根本没有水库。上大学后，我问城市同学中小学时写了什么作文，他们说也写保护集体财产。比如，某个风雨交加的夜晚，“我”突然想起教室窗户没关，去学校关窗户；还有人写从家里带锤子、钉子修理学校桌椅。

拾金不昧也被写滥了，不是捡钱交给警察叔叔，就是捡到东西交给老师。乐于助人也是极受欢迎的题材，要么帮老人过马路，要么帮生病的同学补习功课。勤俭节约更是老套路。

上世纪90年代初，我正上初中的侄女有一篇作文获得了优等，内容是书包破了，妈妈拒绝买新的，“我”生气地睡下了，半夜醒来，发现妈妈正在灯下补书包。我询问大姐有无此事，大姐说侄女的书包还没有破就换了，她哪里有闲工夫补书包！我儿子在本世纪初开始上学，他班上的同学好写母爱与师生之爱，落脚点总是母亲、老师。在孩子的作文中，老师、家长都是只知奉献、牺牲的圣人。

近几年，学生作文喜欢跟传统文化挂钩。我孩子读高一时，语文老师提供了一些高分作文的复印件。其中一篇写的是过世的姥姥，作者说自己从小与姥姥住在乡下，姥姥对“我”倾注了全部的爱。每年端午节那天一大早，姥姥都要与老姐妹们一起去采香料做香袋，过生日时送给“我”。据了解作者的同学说，她姥姥家乡根本没有这个习俗。

类似作文看多了，我发现学生写作文从不考虑用自己的眼睛看周围，而是用别人的眼睛看世界，非常在意老师喜欢什么主题、评阅人接受什么题材等。

学生为什么要写撒谎作文呢？一方面是一些教材、教辅书上充斥着类似范文，另一方面是学生要用“主题正确”取悦评委。平时写假作文，高考当然也免不了。有故意作假的学生，也有被逼无奈的学生。有一年高考，某省一位字写得很漂亮的健康考生，居然写自己因车祸失去双手，最后如何战胜残疾，学会用脚写字。

很多人熟悉“削足适履”这个成语，如果说为了适应新鞋而削自己的脚是愚蠢可笑的，那么揣摩别人意图或者按设定的主题作文，就显得可悲可怜。因为，削去的不是肢体，而是学生的个性思想与创新精神。