Post by jacobwinkler on Aug 9, 2011 22:08:23 GMT -5
Ashley Merryman's & Po Bronson's "The Creativity Crisis" address a very serious and very real issue in today's society. Kids and adults today lack the ability to think outside the box and truly innovate. The article doesn't point fingers directly at any one culprit, but multiple possible ones. Included on this list is video games. Video games are once again being used as the go-to problem for every issue that is present in the world. If the issue has anything to do with children, video games are the source of the problem. At this point, I should just expect the accusations, and simply ignore them. However, I find this to be an extremely inaccurate and just plain stupid incrimination. If anything, interactive media is the key to the presented problem. My anger and disagreement with this article stops at video games however. I strongly agree with most of the other points brought up in "The Creativity Crisis" and feel that many ideas were spot on. For instance, when the article discussed Jonathan Plucker's visit to China and his discussions with the faculty at a top University. The faculty asked Plucker to describe trends in American education, and we he revealed our standardized testing and memorization procedures, he was met with laughter. I wouldn't expect any other response in all honesty. The way I feel I have been taught from elementary to high school is one of purely memorization and limited problem solving. For instance, in many of my past math classes, I was simply given formulas to memorize and use accordingly with a problem. We're given key indicators to look for, with which we can associate a formula or mathematical procedure with. While this gets the job of standardized testing done marvelously, I have no actual knowledge of what it is I have just done. The inner procedures of these formulas and math sequences are a mystery, and I have no actual understanding on why what I have just done produces accurate results. As an avid programmer, I find this immensely troubling for a few reasons. To get things done correctly in programming, you have to know exactly how things work to properly implement them into any design. For the most basic programming, this isn't necessarily true. However, once you delve deeper and you move beyond the basic limitations of the original data types given to you within a language, you have to start developing your own data types. For instance an integer in programming is any whole number. However, most languages limit the usable size of these integers because the larger they get, the more difficult it is to make them useable with everything else. So, you're given the ability to make your own data types with which you must define how they can be used. Suddenly, the ability to simply plug numbers into an equation is gone, and you must understand every single step of a formula and be able to break it down into smaller parts so you can accurately utilize it's usefulness. In short, I have to do a lot more personal research to learn how things work and properly use them than I would have to if we were taught differently. And for someone as lazy as me, that's quite troublesome.