Tag Archives: Ken Robinson

Does Education Need to Change?

“This really happened. We were sitting there and I think they just went out of sequence, because 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, that was it. Anyway, the three boys came in — four-year-olds with tea towels on their heads — and they put these boxes down, and the first boy said, “I bring you gold.” And the second boy said, “I bring you myrrh.” And the third boy said, “Frank sent this.” (4:47 – 5:22)

This excerpt from his child’s play sets up the rest on the Ted talk about changes to the education system very well. The argument of this Ted talk is about if the education system kills creativity. First, Robinson must set up a basis for this argument, that children are already more creative than adults. If children weren’t creative then Robinson thesis would fall apart since you can not take something away that is already not there. It is not only that this excerpt, about his son’s play, is important for his thesis, but it also shows how well structured his argument is. After telling the story Robinson transitions into talking about how kids are will to make mistakes and take their best guess, but in the corporate world of today that is looked down upon, so no one takes chances. No one doubts his authority since he was a university professor and is talking on TEDx, a very well respected organization. The one issue with having someone so well educated doing a talk is that it makes it difficult for the most people to identify with and could be difficult to understand, but by talking about how his own son and making jokes it is easy to understand for the rest of the public. He spends most of his argument putting in jokes for the audience. This makes the entire video much more enjoyable to watch and allows Robinson to get his message through. I do think there are other things Robinson could have done to improve his argument. If he had set up a power point then he could have shown statistics and graph that could back up his argument, but without and research sourced all we have to go on is Robinson’s logic argument. Without any for of visual argument there does seem to be something lacking but it does seem the Robinson’s intent was to start a conversation on education. This is because he only highlights the problem but does not offer any specific fix to the problem. It would be interesting to research into what he has done further for education since this Ted talk was from 2006.

The Power of Creativity in Children


8:43 – 9:03

In this Ted Talk, Sir Ken Robinson discusses how primary education is eliminating the creative capabilities of children. ¬†He gives several examples of how children are more likely to take risks and are not afraid to be wrong but they are essentially educated out of their creative tendencies because of how school’s are structured. He states that there is a very narrow spectrum for opportunity and success and that few children are capable of being successful in such a system.


In this talk Robinson only uses oral and nonverbal communication to express his ideas. His presentation seems to not require any visuals because he discusses abstract ideas. His examples are short stories that come from him personally so any visual representation would most likely distract from what he is saying. Robinson speaks effectively throughout the presentation. His speech is clear and at the right pace. He pauses whenever the audience applauds or laughs at one of his jokes. This combined with subtle hand gestures makes his  presentation constantly interesting. Although for most of the lecture his hands are by his sides sometimes he move them around to emphasize a point.

Robinson uses a lot of humor in this lecture to express himself. His hand gestures help emphasize his jokes and certain parts of his stories which he uses as evidence for his argument. While the humor makes his monologue a bit unprofessional it feels appropriate for the kind of lecture he gives. Whenever he brings the speech back to his main point he always adopts a serious tone which is similar to that of a university professor teaching a class.