Hacking Ambiguity

Coupled with the #hackssis Hackathon last Friday, this last weekend at the Vietnam Tech Conference was a wonderful weekend of learning, networking, catching up with old friends, and meeting new, inspired educators. I presented a session on Project-based learning, which was well attended, and I attended sessions on “Contemporary Learning” with John Burns and “BYOD Mobile Learning” with Sharon Brown from the American School of Bombay. My biggest take away at the conference came from John’s keynote presentation on Saturday where he explained how many companies and organizations are looking for people who can effectively deal with ambiguity.

This bit was placed next to details and evidence of some employers starting not to require degrees for jobs they post. Part of the reasoning for this is that only accepting applicants with degrees limit that applicant pool. There could be highly qualified candidates out there who never went to or finished a degree program who could be an ideal fit and can deal with ambiguity. There are a variety of reasons why people don’t complete a degree of any kind and there are plenty of examples of successful people who didn’t go to or finish a degree program. Just because they don’t have a degree doesn’t make them less qualified than degreed candidates in some instances. Let me be clear that neither John nor I are arguing that university is no longer needed or that having a degree isn’t necessary. A university degree still opens the door to opportunities that wouldn’t be available otherwise, and students learn critical social and thinking skills along with their major’s content area knowledge in university. The argument here is that there are a set of skills and a frame of mind we really don’t teach in school for which companies are looking- dealing with ambiguity. If kids don’t learn this in school, where do they learn this?

Not only is this a skill and frame of mind needed in the workplace, it’s also needed in our personal lives at times. As this study from Rutgers University (2007) states:

“. . . it is imperative that the learning environments in which students acquire this knowledge be similar to its likely context of use. These likely application contexts are situations in which students will face ill-defined problems such as evaluating scientific findings and arguments presented in the media, determining the benefits and risks of policies (or health procedures) through research and investigation, and constructing logical and scientifically sensible explanations of everyday phenomena. It follows then that learning situations should provide students with opportunities to engage in the scientific practices of questioning, investigation, and argumentation as well as learning content in a relevant and motivating context.”

Since schools, both K-12 and university programs, often don’t teach this exigent ability, how can we better develop students to have an ability to deal with ambiguity? How can we hack ambiguity? How do we change and adapt our curriculum to include this goal and create contexts to ensure students have the cognitive toolbox to deal with other future uncertainties, rapid change, and technological advancement? What types of learning experiences best promote the conditions and contexts where this kind of learning can take place? A broader, final important question to consider: is our current curriculum providing the learning conditions and experiences that will truly prepare our students for the future?

A good conference and keynote should leave you in a deep state of reflection like this. Hopefully, discussions can start to occur and actions start to take place around this issue. Let me know if you would like to chat about it.