Reform the Curriculum, Reform the Social Environment
According to Dale Stephens from his article called, “The Case Against College,” “Creativity is innate — the problem is that schools kill creativity.” Even though this statement is concise, it depicts a lot about Stephens’ beliefs regarding about the role of education, primarily in college. It is undeniably true that college contributes to the decrease in creativity; however, this is not the only cause to the problem. More specifically, he does not take into account that there are other significant, confounding variables that diminish creativity. For one, the cause mostly derives from the students’ experience from elementary school to high school. Stephens is wrong to claim that creativity is innate. Creativity is neither biological nor instinctual. In the case of nature versus nurture, nurture is the predominant justification for the loss of creativity due to corroborative evidence. At a young age, children learn to be creative. The causes of discouraging creativity should be looked from both outside such as at home and inside of classrooms. From a psychological standpoint, classrooms and teachers enforce students to be conformists in the classroom environment. The classroom environment can also be seen from a sociological perspective. Another cause that Stephens claims to kill creativity is the usage of standardized tests as a way to measure students’ intelligence. Despite how this idea has verity, it does not fully provide a clear picture. Politics is the source behind the proposition of standardized tests. The ramification for not reading this is that students may choose to drop out of college without realizing that college is necessary for procuring knowledge to promote creativity from STEM courses. Therefore, college is not the primary source for the loss of creativity; it is the time the students spend during elementary school to high school, both outside and inside of the classrooms.
Stephens’ idea that “creativity is innate,” suggests that creativity is primarily biological; however, one should observe what goes on at home prior to college. At home, parents promote sedentary lives to children as they allow them to watch countless hours of television. The reason is that parents rely on these sources as a way to distract children from their busy schedules. Television becomes the “babysitter” that plays a major part in children’s lives. According to Education Psychologist Kyung Hee Kim, Television, phones and other electronic and communication devices are considered as distractions that limit children’s time from fostering in creative learning. Elizabeth Vandewater was a researcher from University of Texas- Austin who discovered that children’s participation in creative activities on average diminishes ten-percent for each hour of television they watch. According to source three, children from ages two to five usually spend a total of thirty-two hours of watching television per week. That is about four and half hours per day. One can conclude that creative activity in these children decrease approximately forty-five percent. It can be surmised that this percentage would increase if the time spent on computers were integrated into the calculations. Parents themselves can become influential to their children. Apart from laid back parenting, strict, authoritative parenting can also discourages creativity. Parents who discourage playtime also discourage creativity. Playtime allows children to explore and be more innovative. Also, parents that stress the idea that their idea is “correct,” limits and prevents children from thinking freely. Creativity is destroyed if one is taught that there is “one answer in life.”
Even though Stephens is correct that classrooms are another source for the decline, he does not go into further details as to other causes in school; causes should be looked from a psychological perspective. Stephens states that teachers have a tendency to award certain behaviors that follow their directions. What he describes here is operant conditioning. Teachers respond to students who do well on tests and confirm their ideas, with rewards ranging from smiles to grade leniencies. Students who are considered as deviants feel the need to conform and integrate into the larger group, in this case the classroom. For instance, I recall a time when a student in my 8th grade English class proposed many interesting ideas through his writing. However, my teacher frowned upon it as she ridicules upon such ideas that differ from her “ideals.” He even received not so good grades in his “creative” writing assignments. The student wanted to excel in his classes, yet did not find compatibility with his creative side. He eventually faced cognitive dissonance. His panacea was to change his attitude by justifying the fact that if he wants to do well in school, he would have to abide by what the teacher says. Overall, this evidence shows that not only creativity and education are incompatible, but we also want to feel accepted in society. Kyung Hee Kim found that creative students have a fifty-two percent chance of dropping out if they are in the “wrong” school. In other words, creative students are half as likely to become drop outs if they are under the environment that absolutely does not tolerate free thinking.
Even though Stephens blames the decline in creativity entirely from college education, I believe that classrooms before college sociologically contribute to the problem. One of the latent functions in schools is that there is a “hidden curriculum.” It is when certain values are emphasized that derive from a “school’s “cultural message.” Teachers stress to their students to follow strictly on “social norms” through conformity. The fact that majority of the students in a classroom are socialized to follow the teacher exerts peer pressure to those who deviate. As social beings, we want to feel accepted. Students, especially at a young age, have the propensity to associate a teacher as having absolute authority over them. As a result, they feel subjugated and follow the teacher. One of the reasons why majority of the students follow teachers and rarely question is the negative sanction of having their grades being jeopardized. Although Stephens might object that primary source of the deterioration of creativity occurs before college, I maintain that the environment before college plays an important factor in which children envelope themselves and shapes them up to their futures.
Even though standardized tests kill creativity, Stephens did not clarify that politics plays a very significant role in reforming education. In elementary and middle schools, teachers prepare their students for standardized tests to the point where it minimizes any creative thought. For example, the No Child Left Behind Act is administered for students from grades 3 to 8 where the tests would indicate their proficiency in Math and English. I clearly remember back then in 8th grade, where my English and Math classes tried to rigorously prepare us for these exams. My teachers would constantly make copies of old tests as a way to get us used to the formatting and style of these tests. What further showed that creativity was disregarded was how my teachers consistently referred to their answer keys to determine the correct answers. According to source one, Kim looked at numerous results from Torrance’s CQ tests that were used for fifty years so far. CQ tests are highly accurate and reliable in determining if children are creative or not. She stated that, “It is the scores of younger children in America—from kindergarten through sixth grade—for whom the decline is “most serious.”
Despite how Stephens believe that STEM courses are irrelevant to one’s endeavors in college, I believe that regardless of staying longer and paying more for college, taking general education classes do in fact promote a broad range of perspectives and fosters creativity. For instance, even though one majors in areas of math or science, it is essential to take English. The reason is that not only it solidifies one’s writing and reading abilities, but it can also help with one to communicate with others. For example, this assignment that I am learning to make an effective argument can be used to defend your argument in your future career. For instance, if you were at a debate over a scientific discovery, how can you make an effective argument to support your findings? Classes such as psychology and sociology can provide as a basis for one to understand and cooperate well in group works. General education courses can even help one to decide on a major. At the start of the semester, I was unsure as to what I want to major. I am taking Calculus right now and decided to become a math major because of my interest. In terms of creativity, Kyung Hee Kim mentioned that, “In order to produce a really creative idea, you have to have a lot of ideas.” In other words, creativity sprouts from the procurement of knowledge. From knowledge, one can find inspiration. Although Stephens might object that general education classes are a waste of time and costly, I maintain that the skills one learns in these classes can help anyone in the long run in their careers.
Stephens suggests that there are other paths to success than to attend college; however, I maintain that college is necessary, and I would instead change the curriculum than have students to drop out of college. There are three significant areas that influence creativity. The first reform is to enhance cognitive development. In other words, learning knowledge must be done within moderation. Learning is significant for students to have some sort of foundation that they can build on; however, the reason why creativity decreases dramatically in college is because the curriculum values knowledge procurement through standardized tests where as students learn to the point where they have “fossilized thinking.” I would suggest that there would be a shift from convergent methods to divergent ones by having group work to stimulate creativity. The second area is for education systems to promote divergent thinking through operant conditioning. According to source two, creativity correlates with one’s likelihood to take risks and tolerate failure. Clifford conducted an experiment where children from different grades solved problems. The results showed that as grade level increases, the likelihood to make risks decreases. In U.S., teachers have the propensity to reward behaviors that are conforming and quiet, than those who goes against their viewpoints. If the child learns to evaluate and comprehend their mistakes, teachers can reward these kinds of responses often. I believe that this method can be used in divergent thinking because it enforces a designated behavior. Divergent thinking should ideally occur when children are 13 years old because this is usually the time where they face with peer pressure and develop their own identity. The last area that I would change would be to properly “educate” the teachers. In other words, we must enlighten teachers not to judge so quickly upon a student’s response until it is understood fully. In addition, teachers should allow a policy of cooperative teaching with their students such as managing students’ stress and frustrations upon their failures. Thus, students should not drop out of college even if it seems like it is not right for them.
Ultimately, there are other factors that contribute to the decline in students’ creativity before college. These factors must be seen through psychological and sociological lenses in order to enlighten fully as to how creativity declines. Teachers create an environment that “teaches” students to not be creative by exerting their authority or simply stating that answers are wrong. Homes that promote children to watch television and play videogames than to go out and play or read books will are more likely to lose their creativity. Creativity is not biological. If children can be taught to be uncreative, operant conditioning can be used to reverse the damage such as promoting divergent thinking in schools. I believe that Stephens’ idea that there are other alternatives besides college is wrong. We still live in an economy where degrees are used to merit students. Furthermore, college STEM courses are in fact significant because it enables students to be more open to other perspectives. As a result, this fosters creativity. Kim stated that creativity is more likely to occur if the individual has knowledge to work from.
Source 6: http://www.learningfirst.org/creativity-crisis-conversation-nurture-shock-author-ashley-merryman
