Ever since I was a child, I was always taught that the most successful people were lawyers, scientists, or even doctors like my father. However, I never had a strong urge to pursue any of those professions. Rather, my dream was to become a singer. I may have been dreaming too big, but I knew that what I wanted to pursue was not something my parents would be proud of. That is the reason that when I picked up Daniel Pink’s book, A Whole New Mind, I instantly became intrigued. Pink argues that society is transitioning from the Information Age ino a new age: the Conceptual Age. During the Information Age, only left-brained qualities were valued. Left-brain thinkers are commonly known as those who can think logically, sequentially, and have computer-like reasoning. On the contrary, right brain thinkers are creative, and have the ability to empathize with others and express human emotion. They are the designers, the artists, and the musicians of the world. As we move into the new century, right-brain thinking is going to be of utmost importance. The reason that right-brain thinking is so pertinent is due to globalization. The world is becoming more affluent and necessities are becoming more abundant. Technology is improving and outsourcing knowledge work, making left-brain traits less unique. Therefore, to excel in this new age, we must learn to think with our right brain. This means implementing design and different aesthetics into our professions. Pink also offers six high-concept, high-touch senses that he believes are essential qualities of right-brain thinkers: design, story, symphony, empathy, play, and meaning. So if right-brain thinking is so important, why is it that most children are taught that they should be accountants or engineers when they grow up? That made me wonder just how much society effects the educational system. If left-brain thinking was no longer defining us, then how schools need to start teaching their students how to succeed in this new age. This got me wondering how right-brain thinking might influence the education as a whole.
I began my research by looking for articles that discussed the involvement of creativity in the educational regime. I found “Educational Model for Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Primary Schools” by Bout Likar, Franc Cankar, and Blaz Zupan. They argue that it is vital for primary schools to “encourage the development of empathy in young people in order to improve their social responsibility” (206). For example, Slovenia is behind most other regulated and competitive countries because they lack the innovative capabilities that other countries have. Therefore, they have recently directed their attention to the education system so that they can promote creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship among the younger generations. However, this article only talked about how important it is for primary schools to be taught to think aesthetically. This made me wonder how right-brain thinking could influence high school and college admissions.
As I was searching for a new article, I came across “Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering Education” by David H. Cropley from the University of South Australia. I realized that it was better to focus on one particular major and creativity affects that specific field, so I proceeded to read the article. Cropley argues how creativity is essential to students pursuing a career in engineering. He believes that “educational programs focus excessively on narrow and deep technical specifications, with little or no room in the curriculum for developing the ability to think and act creatively” (161). If society is so dependent on the ability of STEM professionals to develop innovative and effective technological solutions, then it is shocking that there is not a stronger connection between creativity and all aspects of engineering. There should be more emphasis placed on design and creative thinking when students are pursuing a career in the STEM field. Although those fields are highly “left-brained,” those who incorporate right- brain traits will see better results in the future. This article described how important it is for engineers to have implement their creative thinking into their work because it will make their work more valuable. However, this applies to all STEM fields. For example, in Pink’s book, he uses the example of a doctor and his relationship to his patient. He argues that “the board that accredits medical schools now makes communicating effectively with patients a factor in a student doctor’s overall evaluation” (170). This new assessment is important because patients can relate better to doctors who are empathetic towards them and can listen. As I read about engineers and doctors becoming successful, I began to narrow down my question. To get to medical school or even undergraduate universities, we are all evaluated by taking those dreaded aptitude tests. Therefore, I began to question if college exams value right-brain thinking. I narrowed down my research by looking at one test in particular: the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT).
I began researching my question by taking a look at Pink’s book again. Pink points out that society has created an “SAT-ocracy a regime in which access to the good life depends on the ability to reason logically, sequentially, and speedily” (29). We have been taught that the gateway to success is passing our SATs, our LSATs, or our MCATs. However, all of those tests measure L-directed thinking and “require logic and analysis-and reward test-takers for zeroing- in, computerlike, on a single correct answer” as Pink explains (29). He argues that those tests only value left-brain qualities. When I read that I instantly related to Pink’s message. It reminded me of when I was a senior in high school taking my SATs. I remember sitting in that cold, bright room thinking “if I was tested on my ability to give advice or to create music I would do so much better on this test.” I struggled to take that test because I felt that colleges didn’t care about my aesthetic abilities. I felt so ordinary compared to everyone else in the room. I was shocked at how society seems to undervalue one’s artistic abilities and felt that is was unfair to be evaluated over exams that I was not particularly good at. As I was thinking about the way I felt during my SAT and reading about Pink’s “SAT-ocracy,” it made me question if there was ever going to be a test that would determine one’s success based on their aesthetic abilities. Luckily, I came across Robert Sternberg. Sternberg is a psychology professor at Yale University who believes that the current tests for assessing abilities are too narrow and can do an injustice to people’s full abilities. As soon as I was introduced to his work, I knew I had to do some research on this new “SAT.”
I began my research on Robert Sternberg and found many interesting articles about this work. In his article, he provided an extensive background on his theories. One of his most noteworthy works is “The Rainbow Project.” The Rainbow Project is a plan for enhancing the SAT. He calls this new test Sternberg’s Triarchic Abilities Test (STAT). I did some research and found “The Rainbow and Kaleidoscope Projects: A New Psychological Approach to Undergraduate Admission” by Robert J. Sternberg himself. Sternberg explains that there is a way universities can assess and recognize natural talents and gifts that people possess. The idea is that “people in almost any walk of life need (a) creativity to generate new and exciting ideas, (c analytical intelligence to evaluate whether their (and others”) ideas are good ideas, and (c practical intelligence to execute their ideas and to persuade others of their value” (279). This is what Sternberg calls the theory of successful intelligence. The theory of successful intelligence provides one basis for improving prediction and possible for establishing greater diversity, which is a goal of most higher-educational institutions. When I read about the three types of thinking, I became interested in searching how the education regime can implement those ways of thinking into the STAT.
My third source provided an in-depth description of the three types of intelligences Sternberg believes should be valued. In “Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test in Three International Samples: An Empirical Test of the Triarchic Theory of Intelligence” by Robert J. Sternberg, J.L. Castejon, M.D. Prieto, Jarkko Hautamäki, and Elena L. Grigorenko, Sternberg describes the three types of intelligences. Analytical thinking involves “applying the components of thinking to abstract and often relatively academic problems” (1). This type of thinking will value the ability to analyze, judge, and critique. Creative thinking involves implementing the “components to relatively novel and unfamiliar problems” (2). This intelligence measures one’s ability to create, design, invent, and imagine. The third type of intelligence involves “applying the components to concrete and usually relatively familiar, everyday kinds of problems” (2). Practical thinking values one’s ability to use, implement, and apply ideas. Creative and practical thinking are closely related to what Pink’s definition of right- brain traits. Conversely, analytic thinking consists of more left-brain traits. So why would this kind of test be important or even useful? Well this goes back to Pink’s argument in his book. This test would not only examine one’s ability to solve a math problem, but it will also assess one’s ability to judge situations in context. For example, one section of the STAT is the “Practical- verbal” portion. It consists of “everyday reasoning. Students are presented with a set of everyday problems in the life of an adolescent and have to select the option that best solves each problem” as Sternberg describes (3). This is a test that measures everything, from solving math problems to finding a solution to realistic scenarios.
From my three sources, I have narrowed my question and found an exhibit, the STAT, in which I am interested in. My research question is how can we prepare schools to teach students to think holistically so that they might excel on tests such as the STAT? I find this topic interesting because I think it is important for future generations to learn that they shouldn’t be thinking in black and white. I think it’s time for society to start valuing people who are good listeners, who can empathize with others, and who can come up with beautiful designs or ideas. Typically, five year olds are usually painting or coloring in the classroom. However, by the time we are in fifth grade, teachers no longer place importance on how well we can color inside the lines, but rather how many multiplication tables we can solve in under a minute. While abstract thinking is still important, we should learn not to repress our five-year old minds. If we are taught how to think with our right-brains, we can ensure the success of ourselves and even our country. That is why I believe that the STAT has so much potential for our future. This test will judge our excellence in multiple fields, not just one. I think it will influence the education system in a positive manner and that is why I believe that should become aware of this new way of thinking and its effects on education in the future.
Works Cited
- Cropley, David H. “Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Engineering.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts 9.2 (2015): 161-71. PsycINFO [EBSCO]. Web. 17 Apr. 2016
- Likar, Borut, Franc Cankar, and Blaz Zupan. “Educational Model for Promoting Creativity and Innovation in Primary Schools.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 32.2 (2015): 205-013. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.
- Pink, Daniel H. A Whole New Mind: Moving from the Information Age to the Conceptual Age. New York: Riverhead, 2005. Print.
- Sternberg, Robert J. “The Rainbow and Kaleidoscope Projects: A New Psychological Approach to Undergraduate Admissions.” European Psychologist 4.4 (2009): 279-87. PsycINFO [EBSCO]. Web. 17 Apr. 2016
- Sternberg, Robert J., J.L. Castejon, M.D. Prieto, Jarkko Hautamaki, and Elena L. Grigorenko. “Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test in Three International Samples: An Empirical Test of the Triarchic Theory of Intelligence.” European Journal of Psychological Assessment 17.1 (2001): 1-16. PsycINFO [EBSCO]. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.
