"Managing" critical and creative thinking

Very often, we hear about the need to infuse "critical thinking" and "creativity" among our students. Yet research has always been on whether these can be taught, and if researchers believe so, how to incorporate them into pedagogy.

What we have seemed to forget, however, is that when one thinks, one needs to be situated in a context. Not necessarily a task or problem to be resolved (so don't bring "task-based learning" or "problem-based learning" into the equation too loosely), but in a context.

Teachers seem to lack a background belief in the ultimate aims of such forms of education (now I'm doing some hedging here because assertions need to be backed by empirical or qualitative evidence).

We have somehow forgotten to teach our children how to use such thinking appropriately. As such, they begin to launch attacks against traditions and regulations that bind their wandering souls. The quest for a voice starts to tickle their hearts but one wonders if deep down they are really passionate about issues, never mind if their opinions may still be tender or their considerations partial. In areas where we need such criticality or creativity, such as R&D, entrepreneurship, social activism etc, many (I wouldn't say all, since there are bound to be - fortunately- exceptions) children instead grow up into adults who learn to avoid and evade.

Risks, that's what we are afraid of. The same applies for our children.

Critical and creative thinking thus need a more holistic, comprehensive and long-term programme to develop children into real 'owners' of the 21st century. The scale is still skewed towards 'people for nation's growth', and it is time we begin to look from societal consensus that overpowers public participation, to first focusing on the identities and internal dilemmas of every individual. Only with this is then 'positive conflict' a possibility, and then hopefully communities of people come together in a showing of collective activism. The key here is to tolerate some mild imperfections and conflicts, instead of trying to stick with old ways because they have proven effective in the past. Even viruses mutate, what more people and societies.

What this requires, however, is a government that is even stronger and more shrewd, so that it is able to manage tensions (again, manage not suppress or avoid) and still play a leading role amongst the people and such groups. For the moment we lack such a government, we risk becoming the next Hong Kong where the Chief Executive ends up having bananas thrown at him in Parliament while the whole society is just like a big marketplace where you hear a whole mass of noises but never really know who's saying what, except if they are close enough.

As a disclaimer, let me add that this is a long-term projection, an ideal that can be classed as 'Utopian' if you would like. But this seems like an inevitable direction to head towards, for even if the government can maintain status quo and keep the country in a harmonious ambience, global forces will jerk it out of its beautiful dreams. In this age of the Internet, this age of internationalisation and global economic demands, we cannot avoid the evolution of thoughts since that is how society progresses - or for that matter, without fast-enough response to changing circumstances, falters.