Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Article . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
ZENODO
Article . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Article . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Creativity and Contemporary Schooling: A Critical Appraisal of Ken Robinson's "Do Schools Kill Creativity

Authors: Ejuchegahi A., Angwaomaodoko;

Creativity and Contemporary Schooling: A Critical Appraisal of Ken Robinson's "Do Schools Kill Creativity

Abstract

The increasing demand for innovation, adaptability, and critical problem-solving in contemporary society has renewed attention to the capacity of formal education systems to nurture or constrain learners’ creative potential. This paper appraised Ken Robinson’s influential speech, “Do Schools Kill Creativity?”, with a view to examining the validity, relevance, and educational implications of its central arguments within present-day schooling. Specifically, the paper interrogated Robinson’s major claims concerning the suppressive tendencies of conventional school structures, evaluates the extent to which contemporary educational research supports or challenges his position on the relationship between schooling and creativity, and assesses the relevance of his critique to current educational practices and curriculum development. The paper was anchored on Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Theory, which provides conceptual support for Robinson’s rejection of narrow definitions of intelligence and his advocacy for broader recognition of diverse learner capacities. Adopting an analytical review (appraisal) method, the paper critically examined recent empirical studies, theoretical perspectives, and educational reform literature relevant to creativity and formal schooling. The paper revealed that Robinson’s critique remains substantially valid, particularly in contexts characterised by rigid curriculum structures, examination-driven instruction, and limited opportunities for interdisciplinary and creative engagement. However, evidence from curriculum reforms in countries such as Finland and Singapore demonstrates that schools can effectively foster creativity through intentional pedagogical redesign. The paper concluded that schools do not inherently suppress creativity; rather, creativity is diminished when educational systems prioritise conformity over intellectual exploration. It therefore recommended assessment reform, stronger integration of creativity-centred learning within curriculum frameworks, and sustained teacher development aimed at promoting innovative classroom practices.

Keywords

Creativity, Ken Robinson, Analytical Appraisal, Curriculum Reform, Educational Practice, Multiple Intelligence Theory, Schooling

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Green