Excellent and vexed questions, Scott. Tests and exams only show so much. Application of knowledge is a much more significant measure. But measuring curiosity, critical thinking and creativity? Much more complex. Yet often more significant.
For sure. I checked with a few teacher friends whether such assessment methods already exist, and I did learn that some IB schools do try to assess things like 'curiosity' via Theory of Knowledge but the rubriks are apparently quite rudimentary.
I think the other challenge is that it's relative to the individual. It's far easier to compare right answers vs wrong answers, but it's harder to try to assess say... a 15% increase to a student's learning capability. I've got some ideas that I'll be presenting at an education conference in a few months time, and will report back what I've learned!
I absolutely loved it! The way you used the microscope, telescope, and kaleidoscope to frame knowledge is an inspiring perspective on learning. Appreciated the idea of zooming in to form connections and zooming out to observe the bigger patterns.
Your point about experimentation stuck with me. We learn a lot through trial and error. It makes me think how often do we try new ways in our learning instead of just sticking to the usual methods? That's when creativity and innovation can emerge.
Your critique of academia resonated with me. The pressure to conform to a system rather than fostering curiosity is a significant challenge. It makes me reflect how we can create environments that genuinely reward curiosity, creativity, and critical thinking which I relate and keeps me inspired.
Anyway, I wanted to express my appreciation for your piece. :)
Thanks for your reflections! I do think there are quite a few more dynamics that prevent us as adults from trying new things, which I'll share in a future article. Appreciate you!
I love the idea of connecting the constellations of what we know, and looking in three ways at how we know. I've been finding this to be very helpful in playing with how to approach things with different creativity.
Thanks Scott. As always thought provoking and the moments of ...hmmmm I hadn't thought about it like that. I looked for the constellation Don't Put Fork In Toaster-ius last night but could not locate it. Are you and I in the same universe? 🙂
Hahaha, well, one of the unique aspects of the Toaster-ius sign is that it won't emerge if you stare at it. As soon as you look away, it will pop up out of its heavenly slots. Happens every time. 😉
I taught secondary school for several years in Trinidad and Business Communication to adults. In retrospect, it was probably one of the best jobs I had, but the pressure to "teach to the test" was constant. The best learning moments often occurred when we went off-script, which usually got me into trouble, but it was when students could pursue a genuine question without worrying about how it would be assessed. But curriculum requirements and standardized testing increasingly squeezed out these teaching moments.
What's worked best in my experience?
Project-based learning where students tackle real problems with incomplete information. Emphasizing process over product.
Creating space for productive failure.
And most importantly, modeling intellectual humility - showing that I don't have all the answers either.
The academic publishing treadmill reminds me of Goodhart's Law - "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."
Oooh - we are 100% in alignment on Goodhart's Law! I really do think that's a massive dynamic at play, compounded by a broad discomfort with qualitative measurements.
At the place I teach now, I'm constantly going off-script and asking the students what they think, and wanting to encourage that. In doing so, I can sense that different students are at different levels of capability, so I can understand how challenging it would be to try and provide some semblance of 'improvement'.
I'll be presenting some of the elements of the thinking in this article at an Education Conference in Hong Kong later in the year, so will report back with outcomes of the discussions!
Hi Scott, this is another fascinating topic that got me thinking.
Here’s what I think is interesting: When we are children, we are often left alone to learn on our own. But when we become adults, we are very restricted in how we can learn. There are many guardrails put up for us, as you mentioned in academia.
When we are children, how often did our parents let us do some activity just so we could see for ourselves what would happen? Like touching a hot stove or playing with that bug that could bite us, or riding a bike dangerously.
The point is, when we are children, failure becomes a teaching tool. But when we become adults, failure is something to be avoided at all costs. Maybe we need to think more about removing those guardrails we put up for ourselves as adults, and see if that doesn’t unleash our creativity.
Thanks so much for that reflection Mack! I really, really love your thought of 'removing the guardrails we put up for ourselves as adults'.
A 'yes, and' thought that I ended up leaving on the editing room floor was making the link between 'constellations' and expertise, which is another way of looking at 'guardrails'. So for example, we engage experts because they bring tried and true 'constellations' to the table. A marketing methodology, a business blueprint, these are all tools that business consultants use to help people understand the 'chaos' of business.
But there's a gulf of difference between experts who try to force everything into their methodologies vs those who know how to hold the tools lightly, who have the ability to remove those 'guardrails' and unleash creativity.
You've inspired me to do a Part 2 of this article, and I'll explore that notion of adult guardrails in more detail!
So much of this is tied to the fact that 'publish or perish' is a major concept in academia. In order to get tenure at most institutions, especially research-focused ones, you need a substantial amount of research. This creates a lot of pressure on faculty, and occasionally, unethical behaviors arise because of that. As for the teaching aspect, I worked in academia for nearly 20 years, and it took me a long time to understand that, for many faculty members, research was the primary reason they were there, not teaching.
100% Bette. What I've realised in my time lecturing is this (and I say this as an observation, not criticism): Because academics are so immersed in the research, and they too have been evaluated by the system of academia, what they're inadvertently teaching is 'how to be an academic', and not the actual subject itself.
Naturally, 'not all academics'. My favourite lecturer in my undergraduate days was an economist who said: "I love economics. And I want you to love economics too." He used research to back up his teachings, but his goal was to instill passion for the topic in his students. It was such a profoundly different learning experience that he's my role model for how I'm teaching now.
It’s tough because so many also went straight from undergrad to get their PhD and then into university to teach. So many never work outside the college or university to bring outside work experience to the classroom. I think students really appreciate those who bring real world examples to their teaching.
Haha! Well, I would never offer a definitive 'answer' per se... but I actually do have some ideas on what they could be. However, at this stage, they are just ideas, and I wanted to see if other folks had any insights or experiences before I present my hypotheses (perhaps I should've elaborated on that in the article!).
I am however presenting some of this at an education conference in a couple of month's time in Hong Kong, so will report back on it!
This is so well written and thought provoking. Acquiring knowledge in medical school was like drinking from a fire hose. But there was no way around the fact that we had to acquire a mountain of knowledge before we could begin to think creatively. Some of us began to wonder, most of us were just satisfied to apply what others discovered. And then just when we thought that we knew something, a study would be published that turned what we knew on its head. So I am certain about very little. I just reach a point where it makes more sense to believe and then I act on that belief. Until I don’t.
I really appreciate the compliment Joel! Haha I have to admit I agonised a bit over this article because there's so much more I wanted to say, and I had to really wrestle with pinning down the 'constellation' of the article. Even now, I'm looking at the cutting room floor and thinking there were other things I should have included!
Case in point: To your reflection about being certain about very little, I really do think that really is the natural evolution of learning. As you put it so well, we absolutely do need to start with acquiring a mountain of knowledge first (all the existing constellations built by those before you). But at some point, we realise that those bodies of knowledge aren't permanent; they're just the best version of how we think the medicine works at a particular stage in time. However, just because we know that doesn't mean we then discard all existing knowledge; we might just start to think: "Well, this is the best we know for now" and thus we start holding our 'constellations' a bit more lightly. We stop being fixated on the 'knowledge' itself and we become better at navigating and building new connections for ourselves.
Excellent and vexed questions, Scott. Tests and exams only show so much. Application of knowledge is a much more significant measure. But measuring curiosity, critical thinking and creativity? Much more complex. Yet often more significant.
For sure. I checked with a few teacher friends whether such assessment methods already exist, and I did learn that some IB schools do try to assess things like 'curiosity' via Theory of Knowledge but the rubriks are apparently quite rudimentary.
I think the other challenge is that it's relative to the individual. It's far easier to compare right answers vs wrong answers, but it's harder to try to assess say... a 15% increase to a student's learning capability. I've got some ideas that I'll be presenting at an education conference in a few months time, and will report back what I've learned!
I absolutely loved it! The way you used the microscope, telescope, and kaleidoscope to frame knowledge is an inspiring perspective on learning. Appreciated the idea of zooming in to form connections and zooming out to observe the bigger patterns.
Your point about experimentation stuck with me. We learn a lot through trial and error. It makes me think how often do we try new ways in our learning instead of just sticking to the usual methods? That's when creativity and innovation can emerge.
Your critique of academia resonated with me. The pressure to conform to a system rather than fostering curiosity is a significant challenge. It makes me reflect how we can create environments that genuinely reward curiosity, creativity, and critical thinking which I relate and keeps me inspired.
Anyway, I wanted to express my appreciation for your piece. :)
Thanks for your reflections! I do think there are quite a few more dynamics that prevent us as adults from trying new things, which I'll share in a future article. Appreciate you!
I'm really looking forward to reading them! Same here :)
I love the idea of connecting the constellations of what we know, and looking in three ways at how we know. I've been finding this to be very helpful in playing with how to approach things with different creativity.
Love to hear that the three scopes are helping out Hans!
Indeed - and I need the impetus toward curiosity that you exude!
Thanks Scott. As always thought provoking and the moments of ...hmmmm I hadn't thought about it like that. I looked for the constellation Don't Put Fork In Toaster-ius last night but could not locate it. Are you and I in the same universe? 🙂
Hahaha, well, one of the unique aspects of the Toaster-ius sign is that it won't emerge if you stare at it. As soon as you look away, it will pop up out of its heavenly slots. Happens every time. 😉
😜
I taught secondary school for several years in Trinidad and Business Communication to adults. In retrospect, it was probably one of the best jobs I had, but the pressure to "teach to the test" was constant. The best learning moments often occurred when we went off-script, which usually got me into trouble, but it was when students could pursue a genuine question without worrying about how it would be assessed. But curriculum requirements and standardized testing increasingly squeezed out these teaching moments.
What's worked best in my experience?
Project-based learning where students tackle real problems with incomplete information. Emphasizing process over product.
Creating space for productive failure.
And most importantly, modeling intellectual humility - showing that I don't have all the answers either.
The academic publishing treadmill reminds me of Goodhart's Law - "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."
Have a good week ahead Scott.
Oooh - we are 100% in alignment on Goodhart's Law! I really do think that's a massive dynamic at play, compounded by a broad discomfort with qualitative measurements.
At the place I teach now, I'm constantly going off-script and asking the students what they think, and wanting to encourage that. In doing so, I can sense that different students are at different levels of capability, so I can understand how challenging it would be to try and provide some semblance of 'improvement'.
I'll be presenting some of the elements of the thinking in this article at an Education Conference in Hong Kong later in the year, so will report back with outcomes of the discussions!
Thanks for sharing Neela!
that’s a good point - understanding the different capacity levels. Looking forward to seeing highlights from your presentation Scott.
Hi Scott, this is another fascinating topic that got me thinking.
Here’s what I think is interesting: When we are children, we are often left alone to learn on our own. But when we become adults, we are very restricted in how we can learn. There are many guardrails put up for us, as you mentioned in academia.
When we are children, how often did our parents let us do some activity just so we could see for ourselves what would happen? Like touching a hot stove or playing with that bug that could bite us, or riding a bike dangerously.
The point is, when we are children, failure becomes a teaching tool. But when we become adults, failure is something to be avoided at all costs. Maybe we need to think more about removing those guardrails we put up for ourselves as adults, and see if that doesn’t unleash our creativity.
Thanks so much for that reflection Mack! I really, really love your thought of 'removing the guardrails we put up for ourselves as adults'.
A 'yes, and' thought that I ended up leaving on the editing room floor was making the link between 'constellations' and expertise, which is another way of looking at 'guardrails'. So for example, we engage experts because they bring tried and true 'constellations' to the table. A marketing methodology, a business blueprint, these are all tools that business consultants use to help people understand the 'chaos' of business.
But there's a gulf of difference between experts who try to force everything into their methodologies vs those who know how to hold the tools lightly, who have the ability to remove those 'guardrails' and unleash creativity.
You've inspired me to do a Part 2 of this article, and I'll explore that notion of adult guardrails in more detail!
So much of this is tied to the fact that 'publish or perish' is a major concept in academia. In order to get tenure at most institutions, especially research-focused ones, you need a substantial amount of research. This creates a lot of pressure on faculty, and occasionally, unethical behaviors arise because of that. As for the teaching aspect, I worked in academia for nearly 20 years, and it took me a long time to understand that, for many faculty members, research was the primary reason they were there, not teaching.
100% Bette. What I've realised in my time lecturing is this (and I say this as an observation, not criticism): Because academics are so immersed in the research, and they too have been evaluated by the system of academia, what they're inadvertently teaching is 'how to be an academic', and not the actual subject itself.
Naturally, 'not all academics'. My favourite lecturer in my undergraduate days was an economist who said: "I love economics. And I want you to love economics too." He used research to back up his teachings, but his goal was to instill passion for the topic in his students. It was such a profoundly different learning experience that he's my role model for how I'm teaching now.
Thanks for sharing!
It’s tough because so many also went straight from undergrad to get their PhD and then into university to teach. So many never work outside the college or university to bring outside work experience to the classroom. I think students really appreciate those who bring real world examples to their teaching.
I got to the end hoping you had the answer!
Haha! Well, I would never offer a definitive 'answer' per se... but I actually do have some ideas on what they could be. However, at this stage, they are just ideas, and I wanted to see if other folks had any insights or experiences before I present my hypotheses (perhaps I should've elaborated on that in the article!).
I am however presenting some of this at an education conference in a couple of month's time in Hong Kong, so will report back on it!
You should get some great feedback there! I’ll look for your insights.
This is so well written and thought provoking. Acquiring knowledge in medical school was like drinking from a fire hose. But there was no way around the fact that we had to acquire a mountain of knowledge before we could begin to think creatively. Some of us began to wonder, most of us were just satisfied to apply what others discovered. And then just when we thought that we knew something, a study would be published that turned what we knew on its head. So I am certain about very little. I just reach a point where it makes more sense to believe and then I act on that belief. Until I don’t.
Thanks for writing. You are an excellent writer!
I really appreciate the compliment Joel! Haha I have to admit I agonised a bit over this article because there's so much more I wanted to say, and I had to really wrestle with pinning down the 'constellation' of the article. Even now, I'm looking at the cutting room floor and thinking there were other things I should have included!
Case in point: To your reflection about being certain about very little, I really do think that really is the natural evolution of learning. As you put it so well, we absolutely do need to start with acquiring a mountain of knowledge first (all the existing constellations built by those before you). But at some point, we realise that those bodies of knowledge aren't permanent; they're just the best version of how we think the medicine works at a particular stage in time. However, just because we know that doesn't mean we then discard all existing knowledge; we might just start to think: "Well, this is the best we know for now" and thus we start holding our 'constellations' a bit more lightly. We stop being fixated on the 'knowledge' itself and we become better at navigating and building new connections for ourselves.
To quote Socrates: I know that I know nothing.
Thank you again for reading Joel!