Rhetorical Analysis Of Do Schools Kill Creativity

476 Words2 Pages

Ken Robinson is the author of many books and a so called ‘creativity expert’. In 2006, he gave a speech for TED entitled ‘Do Schools Kill Creativity?’, which explores how the modern educational system discourages creative pursuits and demands high results from all students. Using slim to no statistics or formal studies, Robinson crafts his argument with stories and his own personal experience in the area of study.
The entire speech is based on pathos but the audience interprets all of these stories as fact because of who is delivering the information to them. Ken Robinson is known well enough as a credible educationalist to take advantage of this rhetorical strategy. Another reason this works well for him is because all of his stories are told vividly, with a personal shine to them, they also showcase a progression from the first ones he tells being extremely personal to the last ones told being what has been observed and analysed by the …show more content…

His entire speech builds upon and works to prove this idea. He knew his intended audience when writing this speech was not the people who could make direct change to the system, but that it might develop into one of the many catalysts needed to create long lasting change to how children are brought up through the educational complex. This is why the text comes off as an introductory course to a multifaceted issue. This is not a bad thing, it is necessary step if support is to be garnered from the intended audience.
The goal of this speech was to spread awareness to the general public about the negative aspects of education today, and that goal was thoroughly achieved. Robinson crafted a concise argument and kept it clear throughout the entire text. He used many examples and strung them all together in a way that fit perfectly. “Do Schools Kill Creativity?” is informative, well rounded, and quite