Creativity debate offers chance to re-balance educational system

The debate on creativity has centred on two issues: curriculum changes; and
the increased use of Information Technology (IT) in schools. These changes
are welcome. In particular, I applaud the Ministry of Educationís plan to
give all children access to computers. Policies to ensure that every child
is brought to the same starting line are as important as a level playing
field.

There are several points worth remembering as the plans to encourage
creativity are developed. The first is that creativity is multi-faceted
rather than unitary. ëCreativity testsí are really limited tests of
specific abilities, usually those highly valued by our political economy.
Therefore, children who do poorly on the tests are not dullards. To
mis-label them as ënot creativeí diverts attention from the need to reform
the educational system to stimulate, recognise, value and nurture all kinds
of creative talent, not just those with high economic priority.

The second point concerns the appropriate role of creativity tests in our
educational system. Some propose to incorporate a creativity component into
existing tests. However, tests by themselves cannot engender greater
creativity in students. Relying on tests to encourage creativity
perpetuates the current situation whereby learning is examination-driven.

Whereas existing tests are designed to verify studentsí mastery of the
knowledge content of the curriculum, creativity tests narrowly seek to
identify individuals with special abilities in particular areas. For our
society, the only meaningful test is whether or not the levels of
innovation in all fields of activity rise as a result of the educational
reforms. However, if we insist on having creativity tests, I suggest that
they be kept separate from existing tests. Creativity tests could be
reserved as aptitude tests for entry into various fields of studies. They
can also help teachers identify successful teaching methods.

The third point follows from the second: if tests cannot engender
creativity, then greater creativity in our students must result from other
changes. The present debate on creativity has been confined to the context
of the school environment. However, schools function within a society. The
act of creating often involve the rejection of received wisdom. If society
over-values deference to authority and conformity, then those values are
likely to overwhelm whatever emphasis schools may place on creativity.

The fourth point is that so much hope has been vested in IT that we risk
succumbing to technological fetishism. Technology is only a tool. We should
not be so dazzled by high technology that we mistake quantitative
improvements for qualitative ones. For example, the difference between
surfing the Internet for information and using the indexes of a library of
reference books lies in the quantity of information available and the speed
of access. Both are basically searches for information, and there is no
guarantee that the electronic search will yield higher quality information.
Likewise, if we strip the hi-tech frills from Catholic Junior Collegeís new
lecture theatre, we will find informational paths that are quite similar to
that in a traditional chalk-and-board lecture theatre. In both cases, the
teacher acts as a hub controlling the flow of information. The potential
for weaving a web of interactions among students appears to have gone
unrecognised.

Technology may facilitate creativity, but it cannot replace
self-motivation. The lives of creative individuals reveal traits such as
curiosity, imagination and perseverance. These qualities are wellsprings of
creativity. If our children lack curiosity, they will not care to use the
available learning tools, regardless of whether the tools are high-tech or
low-tech. If our children lack imagination, they will be unable to exploit
the full potential of their tools. If they lack perseverance, they will not
stick to a problem long enough to master it.

Yet, the current state of education is that children are over-burdened by
their studies. Remedial classes have mutated from occasional classes to
help weak students into regular classes. Private tuition means that many
children are studying even when they are not in school. Where do our
children find the space to develop their curiosity and imagination in play?
>From a very young age, their development is moulded by their ordained roles
in the economy. The pace and pressures of our system encourages the setting
of short-term goals, such as passing examinations, rather than the
cultivation of perseverance. Moreover, since motivation is externally
supplied from a very young age, the development of self-motivation is also
stunted.

In this regard, the decision to try to slim down the curriculum is laudable
in its intent. However, the slimming-down approach forecloses on the
opportunity to redesign the curriculum. For example, instead of requiring
all students to master a slew of traditional scientific and mathematical
topics, it may be more useful for them to learn how to assess the probable
validity of scientific or statistical claims that they are likely to
encounter in daily life. Or, instead of simply being taught one version of
history, students can also learn some elementary logic to enable them to
test whether or not oft-heard claims of ëobjective historyí are sustainable.

All of the above brings us to the fifth and final point: the goal of a
society of creative Singaporeans requires us to think carefully about the
purposes of education. Education serves at least two separate purposes:
training people for the economy; and intellectual, moral and aesthetic
development. The line between the two purposes is often blurred, which is
why we hear talk of industry becoming involved in ëeducationí when
industryís interest is really in the ëtrainingí part of education. To date,
our educational system has focused on ëtrainingí. The current emphasis on
creativity offers an opportunity to re-balance the system. It is an awesome
challenge, but, with courage and creativity, we stand a reasonable chance
of successfully meeting it.