Wanted: Innovative, creative, critical thinking individuals who can
think outside the box to make decisions about the future of our world, and
enhance our company portfolio.
That is the cry from all major corporations such as Boeing,
Lockheed Martin, Wall Street and yes, even Walmart. Unfortunately, academia is
offering them nothing more than zombie drones who think the same way, dress the
same way, act and talk the same way. Where are the Einsteins, Bells, Fords,
Wright Brothers, and Edisons of the world? No red blooded American Beer connoisseur
would forgive us if we didn't mention Robert Portner, the inventor of the beer
refrigeration system, and original air conditioning system in America.
Are we losing our future inventors? Have we lost the ability
to think critically?
Instead of inspiring the next Edison or Portner, we are
creating dummy drones who are lazy, worthless and who have no ability to use
common sense or think critically. Our schools are no longer encouraging free-thinking
individuals, instead they're assigned to group project time. You know the
drill, teacher asks you to rearrange desks into pods, and you latch onto those
who actively participate and do their own work. Then the teacher places that
one individual in your group. You know, the one who moans, is easily distracted
and who lays their head down when the teacher isn't looking. He is perfectly content allowing others to
shoulder the load. You are sick of having to carry all the weight. When did
collaboration turn into someone else doing all the thinking for you?
Now remember, the teacher has certain expectations. You're thrust into a group activity, and the
idea is to make a collaborative effort of many parts that will create a greater
synthesis. But have you been taught how to achieve this collaborative
effort? The teacher then instructs you
to each submit your final papers to TurnItIn as a decency check - the first signal
of distrust to the student. This message of distrust is accompanied by a
patterned syllabus or classroom goal, expecting students and groups to reach
similar conclusions in thought as those that came before them. But this very
pattern of thought is conducive to repeated inquiry, not original thought. Much
like a scientific inquiry thrives on replication, the teacher encourages
reaching the same destination of thought. For the instructor to expect the student
to inherently know when to collaborate and when to be original, when to copy
the thought pattern that came before them and when to think outside the box, is
a form of gross negligence of training on the part of the teacher and institution.
Today, the future of critical thinking within our school
system is slipping away at great speed. Students are no longer encouraged to be
creative in their academic writing; instead they are encouraged to paraphrase
or quote from some other academic peer-reviewed journal or article. They're no
longer allowed to express their feelings, give a personal opinion or thought
regarding a subject matter or issue. Instead of being praised for originality,
they're stunned and lose points for thinking outside the box. This loss will
impact not only our children's future, but every aspect of their lives, their
community, and the business world.
Although students are encouraged to conduct research for a
project or a paper, they are expected to synthesize that research into an original
product. How many times can a student regurgitate the same information without
sounding as though they're repeating someone else's work? Creative writing together with critical
thinking is no longer the focus of the student. They no longer focus their
creativity into original thought, but into producing a product that does not
arouse suspicion. Suspicion breeds accusation. Accusation breeds isolation. And
isolation bred in an environment known for an emphasis on collaboration is
counter-productive.
Schools should stop accusing and start teaching, without
relying on a piece of software to do their work for them. Utilizing technology
is great, but what about the human factor of instilling creative writing,
creative thought and most importantly, creative critical thinking? Instead,
students feel as though they’re participating in a witch hunt perpetuated by an
instructor who lacks the ability to educate properly. As we
have laid out in this series, legal fights place a burden on the school and the
student, pitting them against one another. Has technology merely created a
climate of despair and abuse among students?
When we force students to continually use technology, instead of their
brain, they will only think inside the box rather than outside it. Where is the
creativity or critical thinking in our future leaders?
“I saw the best minds
of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked...” –
Allen Ginsberg
Is this what we want from our universities: a system that
tells the student not to think outside the box – to simply know how to color
within the lines? An educational incubator that starves students of freedom of
thought without reproach or vulnerability? The true visionaries could be
tripped up by a correlating document they never knew existed. Similarities in
language and purpose breed conformity to the papers of the past. Students are
given the message not to get caught (whether guilty or not) over the message
that pure, original thought will be appreciated and vindicated. The school no
longer has the back of the ‘guilty’ student. And a ‘guilty until proven
innocent’ system can only be producing the worst type of debased offender
possible right into areas where we may need them the most: government,
journalism, and the business world.
No comments:
Post a Comment