Just imagine if our children become the next generation of users, not the creator. Destroyed their creativity by learning habit forming mental ‘copies’, just copy what is learned, without changing themselves.
There’s an interesting thing when the session early, when making the definition of ‘Creative Learning’. A participant asked about the suitability of their own definition and the definition they think is more appropriate, as appropriate (or even the same) the definition is written in the book.
At the beginning of the session, participants create a definition of ‘creative learning’ their version. In this session, use the method ‘create a story’ to create definition. With this story, the definitions formulated of course is the result of thoughts, feelings and experiences of the participants themselves on creative learning. What is interesting?
Here’s more or less a question of one of the participants, “What if the participant feels he made the wrong definition, is not the same as the same as the book? ‘. Teachers are taking examples from history subjects.
Instead of answering, I again asked the participant, “What makes participants think that a precise definition is the same as it is written in the book? ‘. Participants answered, “said the student, they would blame the teacher”.
Well, it’s obvious now. Apparently teachers often question the student. Students are considered to have a problem if it can not be in the lesson, or the value is bad in these subjects. In fact, from this case is clear, the teacher who makes students is problematic. Teachers require students to learn textual, memorize what is written in the book. With more severe expression, the teacher allowed the students do not have their own definitions.
The issue is not just a matter of values, not just about the exact definition and not appropriate based on the book. How to treat students like these can change their mindset. Students so do not believe in his own thoughts. Overall, students are not so confident.
Mistrust the student is then established patterns of behavior. They fear bad value, because the teacher certainly to blame if they write in the definition of test paper is not the same as the one in the book. Because of this fear, the child will tend to memorize.
Not all kids are good at memorizing. Even if the child fluent in memorization, the results he remembered nothing more than the arrangement of words and sentences are stored. Because memorization does not contain a deep meaning, then what will be memorized easily evaporate into oblivion. What has been learned by rote will only last until the exam is over.
In the long term, these habits will create generations of students or duplicate. Students we will be like a copy machine. Learning what they are doing is referensif, not transformative. Learning referensif just take, remember and use. Meanwhile, transformative learning is capable of producing a change in self-esteem, because what is learned together, being themselves.
Broader effect, our children will minded users, not creators. Learning patterns are formed only in creating transformative learning model, not referensif. Try to imagine how the effect if this country does not have a generation of creators, users only have generations?
What will we do, so that patterns of learning ‘copies’ can be changed?