Tag Archives: metacognition

Content Free Learning (in a world of AI)

Leave a reply

Yesterday, when I took a look at how it’s easier to make school work Google proof than it is to make school work AI proof, I said:

How do we bolster creativity and productivity with AND without the use of Artificial Intelligence?

This got me thinking about using AI effectively, and that led me to thinking about ‘content free’ learning. Before I go further, I’d like to define that term. By ‘content free’ I do NOT mean that there is no content. Rather, what I mean is learning regardless of content. That is to say, it doesn’t matter if it’s Math, English, Social Studies, Science, or any other subject, the learning is the same (or at least similar). So keeping with the Artificial Intelligence theme, here are some questions we can ask to promote creativity and productivity in any AI infused classroom or lesson:

“What questions should we ask ourselves before we ask AI?”
“What’s a better question to ask the AI?”
“How would you improve on this response?”
“What would your prompt be to create an image for this story?”
“How could we get to a more desired response faster?”
“What biases do you notice?”
“Who is our audience, and how do we let the AI know this?”
“How do we make these results more engaging for the audience?”
“If you had to argue against this AI, what are 3 points you or your partner would start with?”

In a Math class, solving a word problem, you could ask AI, “What are the ‘knowns and unknowns’ in the question?”

In a Social Studies class, looking at a historical event, you could ask AI, “What else was happening in the world during this event?” Or you could have it create narratives from different perspectives, before having a debate from the different perspectives.

In each of these cases, there can be discussion about the AI responses which are what students are developing and thinking about… and learning about. The subject matter can be vastly different but the students are asked to think metacognitively about the questions and tasks you give AI, or to do the same with the results an AI produces.

A great example of this is the Foundations of Inquiry courses we offer at Inquiry Hub. Student do projects on any topics of interest, and they are assessed on their learning regardless of the content.  See the chart of Curricular Competencies and Content in the course description. As described in the Goals and Rationale:

At its heart inquiry is a process of metacognition. The purpose of this course is to bring this metacognition to the forefront AS the learning and have students demonstrate their ability to identify the various forms of inquiry – across domains and disciplines and the stages of inquiry as they move through them, experience failure and stuckness at each level. Foundations of Inquiry 10 recognizes that competence in an area of study requires factual knowledge organized around conceptual frameworks to facilitate knowledge retrieval and application. Classroom activities are designed to develop understanding through in-depth study both within and outside the required curriculum.

This delves into the idea of learning and failure, which I’ve spoke a lot about before.In each of the examples above, we are asking students challenging questions. We are asking them to critically think about what we are asking AI; to think about how we can improve on AI responses; or, to think about how to use AI responses as a launching point to new questions and directions. The use of AI isn’t to ‘get to’ the answer but rather to get to a challenging place to stump students and force them to think critically about the questions and responses they get from AI.

And sometimes the activity will be too easy, other times too hard, but even those become learning opportunities… content free learning opportunities.

Going Meta

Leave a reply

If I was going to give this post a subtitle it would be, ‘How do you know that you’re smart enough to know the difference?’

Just to be clear, I’m delusional. But guess what… so are you. The world we live in and the world we think we live in are two different things. We don’t see the world as it is, we see it as our senses are capable of seeing it. Then we go further and apply our individual perspective to add meaning to what we observe.

I say think of a dog, and I guarantee you that you aren’t thinking of the same dog I am. Not the same kind, not the same size, probably not the same disposition… which might be different in our perception even if we were thinking of the same dog.

So we live lives of illusion and delusion, except most of our delusions are close enough to each other’s that we don’t think of each other as crazy… Most delusions. Although, maybe less of them than at any time in recent history. Because now more than ever people seem to be seeing the world in vastly different ways.

So what can we personally do? We need to get meta. We need to think about our thinking. We have to start from honest awareness and seek to debunk ourselves, to figure out how we are deceiving ourselves. We have to see the frame we put around things. Observe ourselves, (the observer).

This meta self reflection is most important when we talk to someone with a different perspective or world view. It’s so easy to see the bias of others, and much harder to see our own. Yet this self reflection is essential.

A wonderful example of this is looking at the growth in numbers of people who think the world is flat. It flabbergasts me to think that this number is actually getting larger. How is that possible? Flat world views. That is to say, people are asking one question, looking from one central position: ‘Show me the curve… I’m on earth and I can’t see it. You must be delusional and gullible to believe it’s round, when you can’t see it.’

Only then, and from that biased position, can someone make jumps to conclusions like NASA is trying to fool us, and the conspiracy to fool us is suddenly everywhere. Then evidence that fits this world view suddenly starts to appear. Except it doesn’t.

No, what actually happens is that these flat mindsets start to create excuses for everything that doesn’t fit this world view. Never mind that civilizations like the Mayans, 4,000 years ago, understood the movement of the stars and probably already knew the earth was round. Never mind the view of earth from the Apollo moon missions. Never mind simple science experiments that have been around for hundreds of years proving the earth is round.

All that said, the flat earthers start with an observation, or lack of observation of a curve. They are using their senses, that are basing the criteria on their view of the world… their delusion.

That’s an easy example, because there is a lot of evidence debunking a flat earth. But there are a lot of topics where one perspective isn’t so clearly wrong. There are arguments on different sides of the political spectrum, different sides of a global conflict, and different sides of hot topics where the perspective someone, the perspective you, take is not necessarily the clearest. Suddenly our delusion is potentially working against us.

If we aren’t willing to go meta and really look at where our view is coming from, we are susceptible to flat world views. We can get stuck in a single delusional frame of mind where we don’t see what’s really happening, what a better perspective might be. And so just like the flat earther, we only see the issue from a perspective that we can observe, but isn’t correct.

The irony is that the more humble you are, the more likely you are to be able to go meta and see other possible perspectives. It seems that being humble is a key ingredient, because a lot of smart people struggle with this. Religion, politics, and culture all seem to undermine intelligence, and smart people get lost in dogma. Even scientists can do this. It’s not about how smart you are, it’s about how humble you are.

Are you willing to recognize other views? Are you able to let go your ego and really observe an issue from a different perspective? Are you willing to change your mind? Ironically if the answer is yes, you probably don’t need to get meta as often as others. It’s still useful to do though, both to solidify your own view, and to change your mind.