TED演講：學校扼殺了學生的創造性

英國人，爵士，國際知名的創新、創造力與人力資源專家。他是一名激情的演講家，廣受歡迎，善於以詼諧、激情與機智的方式傳遞深奧的知識，他告訴全世界的受眾，在全球經濟的新形勢下，商業、教育與組織的需求如何變化。下面是小編為大家收集關於TED演講：學校扼殺了學生的創造性，歡迎借鑑參考。

中英對照演講稿

Good morning. How areyou?It's been great, hasn't it? I've been blown away by the whole thing. Infact, I'm e have been three themes running through the conferencewhich are relevant to what I want to talk about.

早上好. 還好嗎?很好吧,對不對? 我已經飄飄然了! 我要飄走了.(笑聲) 這次會議有三個主題這三個主題貫穿會議始終,並且和我要談的內容有關。

One is the extraordinaryevidence of human creativity in all of the presentations that we've had and inall of the people here. Just the variety of it and the range of it.

其中之一就是人類創造力的偉大例證 這些例證已經體現在之前的演講當中以及在座各位的身上. 從這些例證中我們看到了創新的多樣化 和多領域.

The secondis that it's put us in a place where we have no idea what's going to happen, interms of the future. No idea how this may play out.

第二點-- 這些創新也讓我們意識到我們不知道未來會發生什麼 完全不知道 未來會如何

I have an interest ineducation. Actually, what I find is everybody has an interest in 't you? I find this very interesting. If you're at a dinner party, and yousay you work in education -- Actually, you're not often at dinner parties,frankly.

我對教育感興趣，事實上，我發現每個人都對教育感興趣難道不是嗎? 我發現這很有趣 如果你參加一個晚宴,你説 你在教育部門工作坦白的講，如果你在教育部門工作，事實上你不會經常參加晚宴,

If you work in education,you're not you're never askedback, curiously. That's strange to me. But if you are, and you say to somebody,you know, they say, "What do you do?"

所以你不會被問及你是做哪行的。你永遠不會被問到，很奇怪。 但是如果你被問及， 他們問:"你從事什麼行業?"

and you say you work ineducation, you can see the blood run from their face. They're like, "Oh myGod," you know, "Why me?""My one night outall week."But if you ask abouttheir education, they pin you to the wall.

你説你在教育部門工作 你會發現他們漲紅了臉,那意思好像是 “我的天啊，”“為什麼讓我碰上?整整一週我才出來一次” 但如果你要他們談談他們的受教育經歷， 他們會把你“釘到牆上”.

Because it's one of those thingsthat goes deep with people, am I right? Like religion, and money and otherthings. So I have a big interest in education, and I think we all do. We have ahuge vested interest in it, partly because it's education that's meant to takeus into this future that we can't grasp.

因為這些事情都涉及 個人的隱私,對嗎?比如宗教信仰,薪水等 我對教育特別感興趣,我認為我們都是如此。我們對此有巨大的既得利益，部分因為教育旨在，將我們帶入我們無法掌握的未來。

If you think of it, children startingschool this year will be retiring in 2065. Nobody has a clue, despite all theexpertise that's been on parade for the past four days, what the world willlook like in five years' time.

大家想想,今年入學的小孩 2065將退休. 沒人知道會怎樣--雖然過去四天會議進程裏都是關於這方面的專業討論-- 但我們還是無法預知這個世界 五年後的樣子。

And yet we're meant to be educating them for the unpredictability, I think, is the third part ofthis is that we've all agreed, nonetheless, on the really extraordinarycapacities that children have -- their capacities for innovation.

這就是為何我們要讓這些孩子接受教育。我認為正是未來的不確定性決定其非同尋常。第三點就是我們都認同一個觀點-- 這些孩子的特別之處正是他們的創新能力。

I mean,Sirena last night was a marvel, wasn't she? Just seeing what she could do. Andshe's exceptional, but I think she's not, so to speak, exceptional in the wholeof childhood. What you have there is a person of extraordinary dedication who found a talent.

我覺得昨晚Sirena的表現令人驚奇， 對嗎? 她很出色，但是我認為她在孩提時代時沒顯得與眾不同。現在的教育提倡的是一個有奉獻精神的老師能發現一個天才學生。

And my contention is, all kids have tremendous talents. And wesquander them, pretty ruthlessly.

So I want to talk abouteducation and I want to talk about creativity. My contention is that creativitynow is as important in education as literacy, and we should treat it with thesame status.

但我認為,所有孩子都是偉大的天才。 而我們卻無情地扼殺了他們的才能。 所以我想談談教育和 創造力。我認為創造力和文化知識在教育中佔同樣比重， 所以這兩方面我們應同等對待。

Thank was it, by the k you very , 15 minutes , I was born... no.I heard a great storyrecently -- I love telling it -- of a little girl who was in a drawing lesson.

謝謝。而且， 非常感謝。還剩15分鐘。我出生於--説錯了.最近我聽到一個很不錯的故事--我很願意講講這個故事-- 説的是一個小女孩正在上繪畫課。

She was six, and she was at the back, drawing, and the teacher said this girlhardly ever paid attention, and in this drawing lesson, she did. The teacherwas fascinated. She went over to her, and she said, "What are youdrawing?"

小女孩只有六歲她坐在教室的後排，正在畫畫， 而她的老師評價她幾乎從不 注意聽講，但在繪畫課上她卻聽得很認真。老師饒有興趣地走過去 問她：“你在畫什麼?”

And the girl said, "I'm drawing a picture of God." Andthe teacher said, "But nobody knows what God looks like." And thegirl said, "They will, in a minute."

她説：“我畫的是上帝。” 老師説：“可是沒人知道上帝長什麼樣。” 這時小女孩説：“他們馬上就能知道上帝的樣子了。”

When my son was four inEngland -- Actually, he was four everywhere, to be we're being strictabout it, wherever he went, he was four that year. He was in the Nativity you remember the story?

我兒子四歲時在英國-- 實際上他那會兒在哪都四歲.嚴格地説他四歲那年在哪個國家記不清了，只記得他四歲那年 去演舞台劇《基督誕生》 你們記得那部劇的情節嗎?

No, it was big, it was abig 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 consideredthis to be one of the lead parts.

應該記不得，情節太長。 故事太長。梅爾.吉布森演過那部劇的續集。 你們也許看過，叫《基督誕生II》。我兒子James在那部舞台劇裏演Joseph, 我們為此很興奮。 我們以為那是個主要角色。

We had the place crammed full of agents inT-shirts: "James Robinson IS Joseph!"He didn't have tospeak, but you know the bit where the three kings come in? They come in bearinggifts, gold, frankincense and myrrh. This really happened.

我們給觀眾們發了T恤： 上面印着“James Robinson 扮演 Joseph"他的角色不一定有台詞，劇情是 三個國王拿着禮物走進來 他們分別拿着黃金，乳香精油，沒藥精油。演出開始了。

We were sitting there and I think they just went out of sequence, because we talked to thelittle boy afterward and we said, "You OK with that?" And he said,"Yeah, why? Was that wrong?" They just switched. The three boys camein, four-year-olds with tea towels on their heads,

我們坐在觀眾席上 我認為他們應該按順序出場， 演出結束後我們對James説： “你們剛才演的對嗎?”他説：“對啊，怎麼了，哪錯了嗎?”其實他們把劇情改了。 他們是這麼演的：三個小演員出場， 四歲的小傢伙們頭上戴着擦杯子用的毛巾,

and they put these boxes down, and the first boy said, "I bring you gold." And the second boysaid, "I bring you myrrh." And the third boy said, "Frank sentthis."

他們放下手上拿的盒子 第一個孩子説：“我帶來了黃金。” 第二個孩子説：“我帶來了沒藥精油。”第三個孩子説：“Frank帶來了這個”

What these things have incommon is that kids will take a chance. If they don't know, they'll have a I right? They're not frightened of being wrong. I don't mean to say that being wrong is the same thing as being creative.

以上例子的共同點就是孩子們願意冒險。 對於未知的事物，他們願意去嘗試。 難道不是嗎?即使嘗試的結果是錯誤的，他們也不懼怕。當然，我並不認為錯誤的嘗試等同於創新。

What we do know is, if you'renot prepared to be wrong, you'll never come up with anything original -- ifyou're not prepared to be wrong. And by the time they get to be adults, mostkids have lost that capacity.

但我們都知道 如果你不打算做錯誤的嘗試 你永遠不會創造出新東西。 如果你不想讓孩子們做錯誤的嘗試，等他們長大了，多數孩子就會喪失創新的能力。

They have become frightened of being wrong. Andwe run our companies like this. We stigmatize mistakes. And we're now running national education systems where mistakes are the worst thing you can make. And the result is that we are educating people out of their creative capacities.

那就會使他們也變得懼怕錯誤的嘗試。 這種情況也存在於公司經營方面。 我們不能容忍任何錯誤。這就使得現在的教育體系成為最不能容忍錯誤的領域。 這樣做的後果就是我們的教育體制正在扼殺孩子們的創造力。甚至可以説，是我們所受的教育讓我們喪失了創造力。

But something strikes you when you move to America and travel around the world: Every education system on Earth has the same hierarchy of subjects. Every one. Doesn't matter where you go.

但搬到美國後，有些事使我印象深刻 如果你周遊世界 你會發現每個國家的教育體系都存在相同的學科等級制度。沒有例外。不論哪個國家。

You'd think it would be other wise, but it isn't. At the top are mathematicsand languages, then the humanities, and at the bottom are the arts. Everywhereon Earth. And in pretty much every system too, there's a hierarchy within thearts.

你認為也許會有例外，但沒有。排在最前面的學科是數學和語言，接下去是人文學科，藝術排在最後。世界上所有國家都是如此。而且相同的還有就是在藝術學科範圍內也有等級制。

Art and music are normally given a higher status in schools than dramaand dance. There isn't an education system on the planet that teaches danceeveryday to children the way we teach them mathematics.

通常學校把美術課和音樂課看的較重要 然後是戲劇課和舞蹈課。沒有哪個國家的教育體系 天天安排舞蹈課 但卻每天都安排數學課。

Why? Why not? I thinkthis is rather important. I think math is very important, but so is dren dance all the time if they're allowed to, we all do. We all have bodies, don't we? Did I miss a meeting?

為什麼?為什麼不呢?我認為舞蹈課很重要。 我認為舞蹈課和數學課同樣重要。 如果有允許，孩子們會不停地跳舞，我們也一樣。 我們都有體會，對嗎?

If you were to visiteducation, 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 bythis, who does everything that they should,

如果你以一個外國人的身份來參觀我們的教育體系， 帶着這樣的問題：“公辦教育的目的是什麼?”那麼當你看到我們的教育體系產業化的發展，我相信，你就會明白 是誰在真正從中受益， 是誰被教導着該做什麼不該做什麼，

who gets all the brownie points,who are the winners -- I think you'd have to conclude the whole purpose ofpublic education throughout the world is to produce university 't it?

是誰得了滿分，誰是第一名-- 關於公辦教育的目的，我想你會得出這樣的結論 世界上所有的公辦教育 都以培養大學教授為目的。難道不是嗎?

They're the people who come out the top. And I used to be one, so I like university professors,but you know, we shouldn't hold them up as the high-water mark of all humanachievement.

因為大學教授是象牙塔尖上的人。我也曾是一名大學教授，也是塔尖上的人。我傾慕大學教授的學識，但 我們不應該用這樣一個頭銜作為衡量一個人成功與否的分水嶺。

They're just a form of life, another form of life. But they'rerather curious, and I say this out of affection for them. There's somethingcurious about professors in my experience -- not all of them, but typically,they live in their heads.

其實大學教授只是360行中的一行， 只不過他們比較好求知， 我這樣説不是因為對他們的傾慕。 在我看來，大學教授有個特點-- 雖然不是共性，但很典型--他們只用腦子生活。

They live up there, and slightly to one side. They'redisem bodied, you know, in a kind of literal way. They look upon their body as aform of transport for their 't they? It's a way ofgetting their head to meetings.

而且偏重於大腦的一側。用書面語來説就是--他們腦體分離。 他們只是把身體當作 大腦的載體而已，難道不是嗎? (笑聲)這個載體可以載着大腦去開會。

If you want real evidenceof out-of-body experiences, get yourself along to a residential conference ofsenior academics, and pop into the discotheque on the final there, you will seeit. Grown men and women writhing uncontrollably, off the beat.

如果你想親身體驗 你就去參加一次會議 --學術研討會，然後在會議結束後再去迪廳蹦迪。 (笑聲)在那你會看到，成年男女在不和樂拍地瘋狂搖擺。

Waiting until it ends sothey can go home and write a paper about education system ispredicated on the idea of academic ability. And there's a reason. Around theworld, there were no public systems of education, really, before the 19thcentury.

期待夜晚的結束好回家寫篇關於蹦迪的論文。注重培養學術能力的觀點根植於我們的教育體系之中。 形成這種狀況還有個原因-- 所有國家的教育體系在最初建立時 也就是在19世紀之前--那時教育還不是公共事業。

They all came into being to meet the needs of industrialism. So thehierarchy is rooted on two er one, that the mostuseful subjects for work are at the top.

那時建立教育體系 是為了滿足工業化發展的需要。 所以有兩點基本的等級原則。 第一點，對工作最實用的科目是最重要的科目。

So you were probably steered benignly away from things at school when you were a kid, things you liked, on thegrounds that you would never get a job doing that. Is that right? Don't domusic, you're not going to be a musician; don't do art, you won't be an artist.

這樣就能輕易地避開孩子們喜歡的科目，從小就不讓他們碰觸。 理由就是 不這樣學就找不到工作。對嗎? 別玩音樂了，你成不了音樂家; 別畫畫了，你成不了藝術家。

Benign advice -- now, profoundly mistaken. The whole world is engulfed in the second isacademic ability, which has really come to dominate our view of intelligence,because the universities designed the system in their image.

這些温和的忠告--築成現在的大錯。全世界都被捲入了工業革命的熱潮。 第二點，學術能力已經成為 衡量好學生的主要標準這種標準是那些大學自己制定的。

If you think ofit, the whole system of public education around the world is a protractedprocess of university entrance. And the consequence is that manyhighly-talented, brilliant, creative people think they're not,

只要你思考一下就會發現整個教育體系 不論哪個國家的公共教育都是一種按部就班的程序 最終目標是為了考入大學。造成的後果就是許多很有天才的有創造力的學生被鈍化了。

because thething they were good at at school wasn't valued, or was actually I think we can't afford to go on that way.

因為這些學生髮現他們的專長在學校 並不受重視甚至還受到蔑視。 我認為我們不能再這樣扼殺孩子們的天才了。

By the way, there's ashaft of nerves that joins the two halves of the brain called the corpuscallosum. It's thicker in women. Following off from Helen yesterday, this isprobably why women are better at multi-tasking. Because you are, aren't you?

大腦本來就是 由神經來連接左腦和右腦 這個連接部分叫胼胝體。女性大腦中的這個部分比男性的要厚。昨天聽了Helen的演講受到啟發，我認為 腦部特徵可能使女性更善於應對頭緒紛亂的事情。 對嗎?

There's a raft of research, but I know it from my personal life. If my wife iscooking a meal at home -- which is not often, thankfully.

雖然關於這方面的研究有很多，但我對於這方面的瞭解其實來源於我的親身體驗。我妻子在家做飯時-- 感謝上帝，她不常做飯，

No, she's good at somethings, but if she's cooking, she's dealing with people on the phone, she'stalking to the kids, she's painting the ceiling, she's doing open-heart surgeryover here.

雖然她不擅廚藝但很擅長其他一些事-- 不過她做飯時總是 打打電話，和孩子們説説話，給天棚刷刷漆， 還在旁邊做開胸手術。

If I'm cooking, the door is shut, the kids are out, the phone's onthe hook, if she comes in I get annoyed. I say, "Terry, please, I'm tryingto fry an egg in here.""Give me abreak."

而我做飯時就會關上廚房門，不讓孩子們進來打擾，不打電話，這時如果我妻子進來我會很生氣。 我會這樣對我妻子説：“Terry，我在煎雞蛋，請你別打擾。”

Actually, do you know that old philosophical thing, if a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it,did it happen? Remember that old chestnut? I saw a great t-shirt recently,which said, "If a man speaks his mind in a forest, and no woman hears him,is he still wrong?"

大家都知道那句有哲理的話-- 如果森林裏有棵樹倒了可沒人聽到， 那是否意味着沒發生過?記得這句話嗎? 最近我看到一件很棒的T恤，上面印着：“如果一個男人説出他的心聲 卻是在森林裏説的，而且沒被女人聽到， 那應該不算犯錯吧?”

And the third thing aboutintelligence is, it's distinct. I'm doing a new book at the moment called"Epiphany," which is based on a series of interviews with peopleabout how they discovered their talent.

培養好學生的第三個原則就是-- 個性化。我目前在寫本書-- 書名叫《頓悟》，素材來自一些 訪談，訪談內容是關於怎樣發現 自身的才能。

I'm fascinated by how people got to be 's really prompted by a conversation I had with a wonderful woman who maybemost people have never heard of, Gillian Lynne. Have you heard of her? Somehave.

對於這點我很感興趣。 激發我寫這本書的原因是一次對話我採訪了一位很優秀的女士，也許很多人 沒聽説過這個人，她叫Gillian Lynne, 你們知道這個人嗎?應該有人知道吧。

She's a choreographer, and everybody knows her work. She did"Cats" and "Phantom of the Opera." She's wonderful. I usedto be on the board of The Royal Ballet, as you can see. Anyway, Gillian and Ihad lunch one day and I said,

她是一個舞蹈編劇所有人都知道她的作品。 她編舞的作品有《貓》、《歌劇魅影》。 她很有才華。我在英國看過由皇家芭蕾舞團演出的她的作品。 你們也看過她的作品。 有一次，我和Gillian 吃午飯，我問她：

"How did you get to be a dancer?" It was she was at school, she was really hopeless. And the school,in the '30s, wrote to her parents and said, "We think Gillian has alearning disorder." She couldn't concentrate; she was fidgeting.

“Gillian,你是怎樣成為舞蹈家的?她回答説：説起來很有意思，她上學的時候， 覺得自己完全沒有希望。她上學那會兒是1930年代， 老師給她家長寫信説：“我們認為 Gillian患有學習障礙症。”她無法集中注意力，她老是坐不安生。

I think now they'd say she had ADHD. Wouldn't you? But this was the 1930s, and ADHDhadn't been invented at this point. It wasn't an available le weren't aware theycould have that.

用現在的話講，那意思就是 她有多動症。你們也這麼想吧?但那時候是1930年代， “多動症”這個詞還沒出現。 那個老師用詞不當。那時候人們還不知道用“多動症”這個詞。

What I think it comes tois this: Al Gore spoke the other night about ecology and the revolution thatwas triggered by Rachel Carson.

現在，我想説的是--AL Gore 曾在這裏做過一次演講 內容是關於生態學以及RachelCarson引發的那次環境保護運動。

I believe our only hope for the future is toadopt a new conception of human ecology, one in which we start to reconstituteour 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 particularcommodity.

我相信對於未來，我們的唯一出路是貫徹一種新的人性化生態的思想， 也就是説我們應重新定義人類能力的多樣化。 我們的教育體系培養我們的方式 正如我們開採地球的方式--以功利為目的。

And for the future, it won't serve us. We have to rethink thefundamental principles on which we're educating our e was a wonderfulquote by Jonas Salk, who said,

但這種方式對於未來將不再適用。我們必須重新思考那些最基本的準則 也就是我們教育孩子的準則。 Jonas Salk曾説過：

"If all the insects were to disappear fromthe Earth, within 50 years all life on Earth would end. If all human beingsdisappeared from the Earth, within 50 years all forms of life wouldflourish." And he's right.

“如果所有的昆蟲都從地球上消失的話， 那麼50年之內，所有生命也將從地球上消失。 而如果人類從地球上消失的話， 那麼50年之內，其他物種會活得更好。” 他説的很對。

What TED celebrates isthe gift of the human imagination. We have to be careful now that we use thisgift wisely and that we avert some of the scenarios that we've talked about.

TED倡導的是人類的創造性思維。 現在，我們必須運用這種思維方式小心地 避開那些按部就班的規則。

And the only way we'll do it is by seeing our creative capacities for therichness 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.

達到這個目的唯一的方法就是運用創造力 最大限度地發揮創造力，而且 用孩子們喜歡的方式培養他們。我們的任務 是全方位地培養孩子，這樣他們才能面對未來的社會。

By the way-- we may not see this future, but they will. And our job is to help them makesomething of k you very much.

順便説句--我們可能活不到未來那天 但孩子們會。而我們要做的就是幫助 他們能在未來有所作為。謝謝大家。