This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Instead of narrow specialization, how can our educational system better train integrative, innovative, and adaptive problem solvers?
Live TED Conversation: Join TED Fellow Eric Berlow
The world is facing many complex problems that threaten the future of life as we know it, and governments and corporations have been ineffective at implementing real integrative solutions. One problem can cause many, but on the flip side, one creative solution can cause many. The world’s most innovative problem solvers have an uncanny ability to see the entire picture and hone in on simple leverage points with widespread positive impacts, yet we are not actively teaching our students to do the same. How can we not only training more creative thought leaders, but also create a population of voters who vote for them and support holistic solutions when they are presented?
Closing Statement from Eric Berlow
Thanks to everyone for the lively discussion!
If I had to summarize, it seems like there is general consensus that we need to better enable students to tap into their individual passions and to learn fundamental, transferable skills early on. While some highly technical jobs require very specific training (e.g., brain surgery), most jobs require the ability to learn quickly, to ask critical questions, and to apply the unique skills that we bring to the table (skills that maybe were never in the job description). Related to this concept, there were some very interesting arguments for the value of philosophy, art, and ethics as providing solid building blocks for embracing uncertainty, abstracting and mapping transferable skills, and balancing critical skepticism with creative leaps of faith.
Some felt that there is enormous potential in applying online tools for making education more modular and "remixable" to help students follow their individual passions. One model for this is Khan Academy, but its main success has been in teaching a very specific (and linear) subject matter (math) rather than broad, interdisciplinary education. Some felt that current online ed tools still don't do much to foster innovation. There is clearly much more we can do to improve online educational tools that enhance face-to-face learning - but there is potential.
A recurring, and very interesting, implementation theme was the concept of a "passion to action" curriculum that helps students tap into their passions, identify problems that map onto those passions, and execute a plan to act on them.
Thanks again for all the input!
Eric.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Jesse Burkunk
James McBennett 500+
http://www.kaospilot.dk/
Undergraduate education.
Year One: Think of a problem.
Year Two: Make a plan
Year Three: Act.
Jessica Green 200+
My question: is it necessary to allocate an entire year for a body of students to think of a problem? Perhaps researching the right problem(s) to tackle is a valuable aspect of education, and as important as problem solving itself. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.
James McBennett 500+
It is interesting that UC Berkeley thought about it and didn't do it. In my own school, there are no grades as we are creative's, and that leads to more bold and daring designs. The ex-dean went to harvard and tries to implent the system their, but couldn't as the overall university loved the grade system too much despite people in the dept knew this other option produced better results.
I guess I think startups for that reason are more interesting in my opinion that the traditional universities as the universities aren't willing to try much where startups jump right in.
Eric Berlow 200+
Eric Berlow 200+
Year One: Identify what you LOVE and what are your unique skills.
Year Two: Think of 5 very different problems that fit your passions and skills
Year Three: Make plans for 2 of these, ideally the most different
Year Four: Act on one but have the other as a backup plan B
Jessica Green 200+