Rhetorical Analysis Of Do Schools Kill Creativity

The TED presentation "Do Schools Kill Creativity," presented by Ken Robinson, argues that the standard institutionalization of school can strongly suppress creative thinking in people. Using his natural authority as an educator, his witty humor and expertise on human creativity, Robinson creates a pathologically appealing argument. However, his challenge to the ideas and methods used at educational institutions tend to lack clear evidential basis and rely too heavily on anecdotes and inductive reasoning. His use of pathos, ethos, and logos makes for an entertaining case for implicating an education system that nurtures rather than undermining student’s creativity. The comedic side of Robinsons presentation lightened the mood of the room allowing

those listening to absorb the information with a more playful tone rather than forcing one’s opinion. From the beginning of his presentation, Robinson defines his audience of parents, and those who have experienced education can relate to his argument. Most of his introduction of the argument by joking, using personal references about being an educator to appeal to the emotion of the audience prior to getting to the point of his argument.

Since Robinson was a teacher, this allows him to be viewed as a trusted source with a vast knowledge about education. As Robinson continues to delve into his argument, he adds narrative to the humor to romanticize creativity. The story about his son cast as Joseph in the nativity play, shows how the idea of creativity in our youth is positive, and as we grow we tend to lose our creative side due to being scared to try new things or be embarrassed. He references Shakespeare as a child, and stories about an aliens’ perspective on our current educational system, to show his opinion of public education. Throughout his speech, Robinson emphasizes pathos by his use of humor and discussion of personal experiences to persuade the audience on the importance of creativity. Firstly, he uses humor to recount a story of when he was a university professor and what he observed, regarding creativity, during his career. While teaching, he noticed that many of the other professors were one-sided by only focusing on a single perspective and refusing to look at it any other

way. Robinson points this out when he states, “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.” Students who have outstanding creativity capabilities won't be recognized because of professors and teachers who fear changing the system will tarnish their students‟ academic success. For this reason, Robinson finds it amusing how unsympathetic these individuals are. Using pathos, he persuades the audience of how ridiculous other professors act when discussing the implementation of creativity within public schools.

To take action for this process, Robinson further highlights a logos appeal for a new method on how to rethink intelligence in the school system. Through inductive reasoning, he defines intelligence as consisting of three components. Robinson says, “We know three things about intelligence: One, it’s diverse, we think about the world in all the ways we experience it…. Secondly, intelligence is dynamic and wonderfully interactive…. And the third thing about intelligence is,
it’s distinct.” These mechanisms of intelligence demonstrate a relationship between intelligence and creativity. With creativity not being emphasized within public school systems, it is more likely that a child’s intelligence will not display distinct characteristics.

Robinson implements humor and being personable in his presentation to legitimize the argument to his audience. Robinson, being a professor, and quite possibly an expert on human creativity, he naturally has authority on this particular subject and uses his experience to back up the generalized claims about schools and intellect. Although his position in the argument remains relevmt to his thesis, Robinsons lack of direct evidence leaves little to back up his ideas. Robinsons argument in “Do Schools Kill Creativity” provides more personal stories and opinions regarding creativity being limited in public schools, but there is no confirmative argument presented.