Williamson 1

Lauren Williamson

Professor Baker

Humanities 1020

19 March 2018

Creativity and Standardization in Modern Technological Schools and the Effects on Society

According to Sousanis’ Unflattening and Research Studies

Nick Sousanis’ graphic novel, Unflattening, highlights a deficiency in American society,

claiming that humans have the capability for multidimensionality, yet are confined by a fixed,

one-dimensional viewpoint that has been established through generations of social practices. As

Sousanis illustrates in “Flatness,” society continues to conform “to a pattern of one-dimensional

thought and behavior” (Sousanis 6). Sousanis critiques a lack of creativity in American public

schools asserting that the standardization of information is producing unimaginative students and

eventually a complacent, stagnant society. Creativity specialist Dr. Kyung Hee Kim proves

Sousanis’s assertion through the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking—a popular test used

worldwide to determine an individual’s creative capacity—ranging from 1966 to 2008. In her

study, measuring Fluency, Originality, Elaboration, Abstractness of Titles, Resistance to

Premature Closure, and 13 creative personality traits of the Creative Strengths subscale, Kim

concludes that “creative thinking is steadily declining over time among Americans of all ages.”

This decline is most severe in kindergarten through third grade (293). Kim refers to this decline

as the “creativity crisis,” and similar to Sousanis, Kim claims that it is an issue perpetuated by

the implementation of standards to educational systems.

 Williamson 2

To address this decline, political and educational leaders must realize the importance of

creativity and the large role technological and socioeconomic factors play in childhood

development. Creativity was first systematically studied by Galton in 1869; his ideas were

widely accepted until the 1950s with the development of the Torrance Tests. In the Twentieth

century, creativity began to be studied with a more empirical, psychological approach, and since

then researchers have been interested in the source and application of creativity (Craft). These

studies, however, fail to address the negative relationship between standardization and creativity

in relation to education and to the development of society. With technology becoming more

prevalent and acting as both a positive and negative influence on childhood development, we

should acknowledge the erroneous nature of this standardized, assembly line mentality that is

generating selfsame individuals and releasing them unprepared into the workforce. I argue

through Unflattening that the flatness of standardization is the primary contributor to the overall

decline of creativity in public schools across America; I will also compare Kim’s “creativity

crisis” in terms of Sousanis’ Unflattening, and elaborate on how we are ignorant of the past’s

influence on our present norms. Based on past research, I offer active learning, instructional

modification, and a more fluid standard system as possible solutions to this growing problem.

The past holds a powerful influence over the modern systems that we apply in schools,

government, and our daily lives. In “Ruts” Sousanis writes, “the march of ideas carves channels

into the landscape – ideas borne by individuals who are in turn swept away by its current”

(Sousanis 106). Entrenched in past conceptions of success, we have created mechanisms to

synchronize our actions thus rendering our society flat. Despite opportunities to improve

education and gear it toward individualized learning that fosters creativity, the federal, state, and

local governments have implemented a broadened learning system that quantifies information
 Williamson 3

through required standards and testing. With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act and

later the Every Student Succeeds Act, the government discourages creative, divergent thinking,

providing monetary incentives to schools that conform to the standards allotted. In turn, the acts

constrict educators, define student’s futures based on test scores, and inhibit individual creative

expression from a young age.

Applied throughout American society, standardization can serve as a unifying process by

which heterogeneous independent activities are organized into a set system (Timmermans 71).

Standards are formed to uphold an existing social order or to simplify and coordinate life.

However, sociologists Dr. Timmermans and Dr. Epstein view standardization as “derogatory,”

saying “it connotates a dull sameness, the suppression of individuality in the service of industrial

uniformity” (71). Similarly, Sousanis describes standardization as structures built “to surpass our

limits” and “to [give] our ideas solid form” that, over time, form and “synchronize our actions”

(108), but he later claims that while standardization has its benefits, “conforming to another’s

expectations is detrimental” (146). While standardization may serve as an effective method by

which to quantify learning, it negatively impacts the individual expression and creativity of

students. Creativity, unlike standardization, does not have a concrete definition, though many

researchers refer to renowned psychologist, Teresa Amabile’s definition of creativity as a

process and/or a product involving inventive solutions to problems or new, effective ideas

(Henriksen 28). Other researchers have added to this definition “context” or “value in relation to

the domain it is created within” (Henriksen 29). Creativity has been linked to future success in

the workplace, increased psychological functioning, and emotional and intellectual growth

(Henriksen), yet through the standardization of schools, we continue to sequester that growth in

favor of building intellectual competency. Kim’s studies show that over time, student’s aptitude
 Williamson 4

for creativity has decreased despite an increase in IQ scores, suggesting that this test-score based

mindset may look good statistically on a page, but have more harmful, long-term repercussions.

The long-term effects of standardization of education include the inability of a future

workforce to express individuality and come up with innovative solutions. In a poll by IBM in

2010 of 1,500 CEO’s, creativity was identified as the primary factor in future “leadership

competency” (Bronson). Kim’s results, however, indicate that “younger children are tending to

grow up more narrow-minded, less intellectually curious, and less open to new experiences”

(292). The overall decline in creativity and increase in standardization in the American public

education systems is disturbing in that it curbs abilities that should be “encouraged to mature

over a lifetime” (293). In Unflattening, Sousanis suggests a change in perspective and describes

the benefits of switching up the daily routine and questioning the everyday (110, 121). This

small lifestyle change can impact how we see the world around us and how we live in relation to

it. This constant evolution of routine and questioning runs contrary to our perception of

standardization which allows for only four choices and one answer. As Sousanis asserts, “When

we stop questioning, we become transfixed, rendered inanimate, flat” (110).

This flat, standardized mentality is exemplified in the mandatory standardization of public

schools by the US government which is suffocating the creativity of both educators and students.

With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002, the government required annual

testing and offered a financial incentive for schools whose scores were high. In 2010, the Every

Student Succeeds Act was passed; this act claiming that “for the first time, all students in

America will be taught to high academic standards that will prepare them to succeed in college

and careers” (US Department of Education). While the Act was formed with good intentions,

there are thousands of schools across the nation each located in a different social climate, dealing
 Williamson 5

with distinct trials, and containing unique individuals. Holding every public school to the same

standard is unfair and defunding schools that do not meet the score criteria incites fear among

educators which stifles creative agency. Along with this claim comes more nation-wide annual

testing from grades 3-8; this high-stakes testing environment not only affects the lesson plans of

educators and encourages a “teaching to the test” mentality, but also diminishes the value of arts,

electives, and recess, thus inhibiting the creative expression of children at an age when rest and

play are paramount to development (Kim). There are many similarities which can be drawn

between public schools and factories as the factors listed above contribute to a work-oriented,

uniform manufacturing environment.

Sousanis’ Flatlanders are reminiscent of an industrial construct introduced in Alvin Toffler’s

prophetic book, The Third Wave. Sousanis draws faceless beings lined up with heads down on

conveyor belts that display no autonomy. “It starts early. Nearly as soon as they can make tracks

of their own,” Sousanis writes (8). The accompanying image depicts small human figures being

molded on an assembly line, and a later image shows these figures sitting at desks with

information being transferred from one source in visible streams to each student (10). This

portrayal mirrors the factory model offered in Alvin Toffler’s The Third Wave in which he

divides the movements of society into three waves: the agricultural revolution, the industrial

revolution, and the information age. Toffler claims that during the shift from agriculture to

industry, education modeled itself after the factory, placing emphasis on punctuality, obedience,

and rote tasks (29). The factory system has slowly bled out to permeate most aspects of society;

from standardized testing and mass education to prisons and mass incarceration to

measurements, pricing, and language. Toffler points out that the standardization that

accompanied the industrial revolution simplified and cleaned up a “complex” and “cluttered,”
 Williamson 6

universe (113), but he also identifies the major shortcoming of this industrial mentality as one

that “praised critical rigor and punished imagination, reduc[ing] people to oversimplified

protoplasmic units” (114). Sousanis argues that education has never evolved past Toffler’s

second wave, despite technological and cultural advancements, and that the standardization

implemented to simplify has erased individual thought altogether.

Technology could be a decisive component in fighting “the creativity crisis.” In this modern

technological era, the world is constantly developing as digital media contributes to

globalization, diversification of thought, and revolutions in communication (Henriksen). With

thousands of capabilities at our fingertips, technology provides a new means to generate

creativity and individual expression as well as offers new ways of “constructing, representing,

communicating, and sharing knowledge” (Henrikson). A study conducted in a South Korean

technological institute examined the effects of the “Visual Thinking through Tablet-based

Classroom Interaction” (VTTCI) on student’s creativity. The treatment group was taught through

active drawing and peer review using tablets and the control was taught normally with no

additional technology. The treatment group, after taking the Torrance Test for Creativity, scored

significantly higher than the control group in Originality, Abstractness of Title, and Elaboration.

Using technology, drawing programs, and active learning would allow a student to expand

upon an idea and render it through his or her own understanding. Education specialist Shaaron

Ainsworth proposes five reasons why student drawing should be recognized as a key element of

science education: drawing enhances engagement, teaches representation, fosters reasoning, aids

learning, and provokes communication (Ainsworth 1096-1097). Similarly, in Unflattening,

Sousanis describes the age-old conception of words as the “proper mode of explanation,” while

images are confined to the “aesthetic” support to the text (54). He asserts that drawing is “seeing
 Williamson 7

in relation” and that through it, “we can trigger correspondence with experience both seen and

felt” (75). Drawing not only enables students to work through the process in their own way and

for the teacher to assure comprehension of the topic, but also teaches students “more effective

and unique ways to express meaning and understanding” (Kim, Park 216). In addition to a

variety of drawing programs, technology offers the capability of a more connected classroom

through cloud and other programs that allow for immediate, interactive peer and instructor

feedback. This connectivity allows for a smooth exchange of ideas, information, and opinions

among students, pushing the boundaries of what is known in the context of a textbook to

discovery through exploration and questioning (Kim, Park 208, 209).

For Kim’s “creativity crisis” to be averted and this decline to be reversed, change needs to

occur on an individual, organizational, and systemic level. Individually, we must embrace the

uniqueness of individual thought. In “Awakening,” Sousanis gives the example of the foot as an

explanation for the necessity of foundational change. Every individual has a unique foot shape

despite being classified as the same size which is categorized using measures determined by one

plane of the foot. Shoe sizes are just one small way that standardization manifests itself in

society. Sousanis writes, “to ignore our differences and the configuration of threads from which

we are uniquely composed robs us of our inherent nimbleness” (145, 146). He advocates that we

make our own paths as unique as our feet, forming individual paths “in shoe sizes determined by

the wearer” (148).

Organizationally, educators must be taught how to teach creatively and encourage it in their

students. Sousanis relates the modern educational predicament to Edwin A. Abbott’s novella,

Flatlanders, suggesting that like the square that is stuck in the second dimension, the modern

learning system is fixed in ruts formed by societies before us. The square is content and unaware
 Williamson 8

in the second dimension when the sphere shows the square the possibilities of another

dimension, the third. Sousanis advocates a new way of teaching through the sphere (23), as the

sphere provides the square a “rupture in experience, illuminating boundaries,” and offers “a

means to transcend them” (25). In the same way, teachers should challenge their students to

question and push the boundaries of what is known. Schools need to teach “problem finding”

rather than simply giving students problems to solve (Kim 293). Educators should model

creativity through the “integration of ideas” across curriculum (Henriksen 32). Standardization

has reduced education to four distinct subjects with four-answer multiple choice questions and

results determined by a computer. These results, in turn, determine the quality of education a

student receives in the future as universities accept, reject, or provide aid based on these scores.

Systemically, the implemented standards should be flexible and fluid, prepared to change

according to technological advancement or social necessity. Timmermans suggests that the key

to standardization is finding a “balance between flexibility and rigidity” (81). In the chapter

“Strings Attached” Sousanis describes the routine life of a puppet. At the end he realizes that all

along there were strings attached to him, but to detach from those strings would send him

spiraling into chaos and disorder (117-123, 134). The strings represent standards and social

boundaries placed on individuals to coordinate and organize the society. Sousanis, like

Timmermans, advocates that we not detach ourselves from these strings, but rather utilize them

to climb higher (135). Dr. Pignatelli, an academic leader, writes in a personal reflection that

“with both modesty and persistence, we are called to continue to imagine ways of keeping the

conversation going about alternatives” to standardization and that “we must remain open to

revising and rethinking how best to proceed” (235). Thus, the solution to the creativity crisis is
 Williamson 9

not in the dissolution of standards, but in the management of the strings that bind and support us

in order to surpass boundaries and emerge in a new dimension that we have yet to comprehend.

Ultimately, the “creativity crisis” is an educational and societal issue that affects all ages,

perpetuated by standardization and beginning young; Sousanis represents the gravity of the issue

on an individual, organizational, and systemic level in Unflattening, providing examples as well

as proposing solutions to this growing social issue of which we are ignorant. Technology

contains undiscovered potential in the creative realm through drawing programs and sharing

capabilities if coordinated with classroom material effectively by educators. Pignatelli surmises,

“the dangers presented by schools to level all who enter to a deadening sameness, a single,

narrowly construed standard of competence, become the opportunities that stir us to think and to

act differently” (234). In order to ensure future success and build back the creative strength of

society, we must raise ourselves out of the ruts formed by the past and alter our perspective to

see “not only northwards and upwards, but outwards, inwards, and in directions not yet within

our imagination” (Sousanis 46).

 Williamson 10

Works Cited

Ainsworth, Prain, et al. “Drawing to Learn in Science.” Science, vol. 333, no. 6046, 2011, pp.

1096–1097. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27978521. Accessed 28 Jan. 2018.

Bronson, Po and Ashley Merriman. “The Creativity Crisis.” Newsweek. 10 July 2010.

www.newsweek.com/2010/07/10/the-creativity-crisis.html.

Craft, Anna. An analysis of research and literature on Creativity in Education. London: Creative

Tallis, March 2001. pp.5-12.

Henriksen, Mishra, et. al. “Infusing Creativity and Technology in 21st Century Education: A

Systemic View for Change.” Journal of Educational Technology & Society, vol. 19, no.

3, July 2016, pp. 27-37. JSTOR, http://www/jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.19.3.27.

Accessed 29 Nov. 2017.

Kim, Kyung Hee. “The Creativity Crisis: The Decrease in Creative Thinking Scores on the

Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking.” 09 Nov. 2011. Creativity Research Journal, 23:4,

pp.285-295, DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2011.627805.

Kim, Park, et. al. “Fostering Creativity in Tablet-Based Interactive Classrooms.” Journal of

Educational Technology & Society, vol. 19, no. 3, July 2016, pp. 207-220. JSTOR,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.19.3.207. Accessed 29 Nov. 2017.

Pignatelli, Frank. “Everyday Courage in the Midst of Standardization in Schools.” Schools:

Studies in Education, vol. 7, no. 2, Fall 2010, pp. 230-235. JSTOR,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/656069. Accessed 29 Nov. 2017.

Sousanis, Nick. Unflattening. Harvard University Press, 2015.

 Williamson 11

Timmermans and Epstein. “A World of Standards but not a Standard World: Toward a

Sociology of Standards and Standardization.” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 36, 2010,

pp.69-89. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25735069. Accessed 29 Nov. 2017.

Toffler, Alvin. The Third Wave. Bantam Books, 1980.

US Department of Education. “Every Student Succeeds Act.” https://www.ed.gov/essa.