 of the fourth industrial revolution, the rapid changes happening in technology? Or is there something else? My view is that we needed a new kind of learning anyway, even before the fourth industrial revolution. And then the second word is learning. I think that for me is an important word because it sort of challenges the idea of learning. There's a perception that learning happens only when teaching, when there's a teacher and also it happens only at school. And actually there may be disadvantages to allowing learning happening that way only. So for me the new and learning are key. And also they raise questions about why do we, what are we learning? What are we learning? Previously when there was, you know, many years ago when knowledge was not so accessible it was about knowledge. But actually it's no longer just about access to knowledge because actually you can get knowledge, access to knowledge anywhere today. So the fact that you know that 4 times 12 is 48 is actually very relevant. It doesn't mean anything. From here on is what do you do with it? So it's no longer about what you know is how do you navigate the knowledge that you have. There's a lot of knowledge out there. It's about what you do with it. So I think that the new kind of learning for me is about why we need the new and what's the learning. And I look forward to having more conversations about that. I think it's a challenge to basic education. It's a challenge for access to universities because if there's access to knowledge it's so easy. What is it that we teach at schools? What is it that's in the curriculum? And why do we teach it? And let me just say also that the newness can also be critiqued in this way that I'm a mathematics professor and the moves in what we teach has changed. I mean when there were no calculators and when calculators were not so accessible it was important that children know multiplication tables and we used to memorize them in school up to whatever level. Then calculators came and that was important but not so important. And calculators became more and more sophisticated that now you can do things with it. You can graph on a calculator. So teaching children to graph to draw a parabola suddenly was no longer that important. It was what is it? Is it just about drawing the parabola or what is it that they're getting from the exercise of drawing the parabola? So what's the skill that you teach in there? Because they can press a button and get a parabola from a graph calculator. And also what you ask them then when you assess, it also goes with what were you teaching and so what are you assessing because you can get it at the press of a button. Now with machines it's going to be even worse. What is it that can be automated that they don't need to know anymore? If we're teaching them, what's the skill that we're teaching them beyond just the knowledge of being able to do factorization, what is it else that you're doing? It's a wonderful way of talking about learning because you're talking about the role of technology in learning, but you're also talking about the role of the body in learning. Yeah. Why is it that we draw? What does drawing do for our minds? And in fact one of the really most famous theorists of children's development, Piaget, has said that our first representation of the world is a representation through our body. And so it's that action of drawing the parabola that brings into a young child and clearly older children and adults as well, that kind of knowledge. And John, it seems like a good jump to you to talk more about that. Sure, yeah. If I can draw on another famous educationalist and someone that's very central to our philosophy within the LEGO Foundation, Seymour Papert from MIT who came up with a famous saying about children being natural born learners. And rather than pushing children to be more like adults, then we might be remembered that to be great learners, we should be more like children. Now I would say rather than, I could perhaps rephrase that in current terms, to say rather than pushing children to be more like adults, unfortunately, many of our structured learning processes are pushing them to be more like machines. The very thing that we know is ahead of them that's going to be a big competitor for their contributions in society. So we feel that there's a real urgency now ahead of us for this new kind of learning. One of the most viewed TED talks of all times was by an educationist called Sir Ken Robinson back in 2006, where he put forward a proposition around whether or not our education systems are killing creativity. So this is not a new thing. This has been on the agenda and the awareness of this has been around for some time now. But unfortunately, the pace of change that we're seeing in society is not commensurate with the evolution of what's happening around the children that is going to impact them as they emerge out of the education system. So we think it's absolutely essential that we start to embrace as both a society and particularly within education systems the need to change our approach to develop a breadth of skills for children, really focusing on how they become creative, engaged, lifelong learning, lifelong learners. An important part of that is to ensure that the learning process is enjoyable, is something that they relish, that they want to participate in. Because it's not an optimistic life. If you're told you have to be a lifelong learner and yet your learning environment is oppressive and repetitive and is not giving you agency as a learner to be able to develop in your natural way. So we believe that the methodologies are readily available to us, but what we have to do is broad scale embrace them and incorporate that child agency into learning environments more readily. Excellent. You've brought up some really important themes there. The theme of machines changing the future of work and also changing the nature of jobs. So we no longer expect to hold a job all lifelong and get a gold watch at the end of a long career. That's not going to happen. And for that reason there's been a lot of talk about re-skilling, the need to be able to re-skill. But re-skilling means the need to be able to continually learn to engage in lifelong learning and co-temporaneously at the same time as this dialogue about re-skilling is going on. Schools are increasingly systematically killing curiosity and teaching to the test. And you can't be a lifelong learner if you've never learned how to learn, if you've simply learned facts or skills and not the love of learning. My students and I do research on children's curiosity and we've done a lot of ethnographies of the classroom, a lot of quantitative work as well in the classroom. And we find that even in science class, and science is such an important part of creativity, that children are really given instructions, take the rock and smell the rock. Now write down what you smelled. And the kids roll their eyes, but they smell the rock and write it down. Now taste the rock good, write down what you tasted. And that's not really a way to bring the love of learning into anybody at all. And it's certainly not a way to evoke curiosity. So those themes that you've evoked of being like a child, but we're talking about a particular kind of child who's allowed to be curious, who's allowed to explore his or her environment and use that as a way to learn. Andrea, this is something that you've used in your own teaching. That's right. Good morning, everyone. I mean, it's quite fantastic. So if I was to ask any of you in this room, what was your favorite classroom lesson, and why was it your favorite classroom lesson? I have no doubt that you will say to me, it was when this teacher took us on a trip or we went out and we went into the environment and then they did something completely different. And I was with my friends and we were investigating and I fell down and we had fun and we loved. And I think that's what your memory has completely remembered. And that's how you have learned your favorite lesson. And that's when the environment was creative. When the opportunity for the teacher and to be stimulated and to enable creativity to happen. In my experience within schools, and my job is to be a teacher, but actually, you know, a job is what you have to do. I love doing what I do. And what I know and what I've seen is that when we have teachers who have got the opportunity to be creative, to think outside of the box to, and that's quite risque, especially considering the amounts of pressures that we have as teachers in our curriculums at the moment. But when you have those moments, the children will blow your mind. Their outcomes will blow your way because they are given the chance and the opportunity to grow, to experiment, to challenge themselves, to fail. And that's something where our children will need to make sure that we hold on to because there's something which the creative subjects I found in school do which not many of the others do. And that it gives them confidence. Now, if you're thinking about a teenager now, and I can honestly say, you will all agree with me, who wants to be a teenager now? No one, right? It's probably the most scariest thing ever. But unfortunately, and you're right to be thinking that because the challenges which our children have are huge. They've got a lot of external pressures. They've got a lot of, you know, restraints. I need to look like that. I need to be like that. I need to be watching this. I need to be wearing that. They don't know who they are. The biggest thing that we can do to help them is to find out how to help them discover, explore, create, heal, fail, safely. And we do that by making sure that we have got the opportunities to keep creativity in school's curriculum and giving them the opportunities. And it's absolutely vital if there's any educational ministers out there that we do this, that creativity is there to stay. And again, a plea, please, from teachers all over the world, we can't categorize our children. We can't say, right, STEM is the direction for you. You must be a scientist. You know, it doesn't work like that. Our children will probably be undertaking four or five different professions. So we need to make sure that whatever they do, whatever they want to be, they've got absolutely every tool they can have in their toolkit. And you're doing that by making sure that creativity is there to stay, not just in kindergarten in the early years, but throughout the educational journey. Thank you, Andrea. So we've heard a number of challenges to school as currently conceived of. And I think we're going to hear one more from Ahadi. Sure. Well, I agree with everything that folks here have said. And I first also want to say how delighted I am to be at the World Economic Forum. This is my first time. What an amazing place this is. But you know, there's so much conversation at the World Economic Forum about the future of work and the age of automation and what's going to happen to the jobs of the future. And all this talk happens about reskilling. It's a word you mentioned as well. And while we talk about reskilling, we don't even talk enough about the skilling, the first go around skilling that students are going through. There's this talk about reskilling with the built in assumption that we're going to teach them the wrong stuff for the first 12 years. Now let's reskill them. Now is the time to recognize that our world spends $10 trillion every year on educating roughly one and a half billion students that are going through this industrialized school system, most of which was set up 150 years ago. Most of the places around the world, if you go to a school anywhere, you'll see people teaching the exact same concepts that were being taught 150 years ago. There's all sorts of debates about changing how we teach. There's very little debate about changing what we teach. Nobody's saying should we still have 12 years of math, 12 years of reading and writing and zero years of computer science, zero years of financial literacy. But there's so many new subjects that you can teach that are more important for child's ability to reach success and also more engaging for their ability to enjoy school. And yet the debates on education ignore this question of what we teach, and we talk about re-skilling them just assuming that the what can't be changed. So my mission is to start a debate not only about changing how we teach, but changing what we teach. And my mission, obviously, as many people know, is to teach computer science in schools. But the reason to teach computer science isn't what people expect. It's not because we're going to need more people to become coders because of the needs for cyber security or so on, but because every career, every industry, every field of science is going digital. And learning computer science will be just as basic as learning to read or learning to write or learning math, no matter what you want your career to be for future nurses, for future lawyers, for future painters, for future architects. And then the second reason to teach it is because school is killing creativity, the industrialized school system teaches just the memorization to the test, it teaches you to graph the parabola. We're not asking why are we teaching graphing the parabola? When will they use this? And if you ask employers what they want, they don't want employees who can graph parabolas. That's nowhere on the list of what an employer wants. If you ask employers, they say they want creativity, collaboration, problem solving skills, and digital skills. Those are the top four things employers ask for. And if you have to pick one subject that teaches all four of those things, it's computer science. There's no other subject that teaches all four of those things at once. Creativity, collaboration, problem solving, and digital skills. So that's the reason I believe it should be taught in schools. That's great. This distinction between a skill and an ability, I think, is an important one. So in the traditional conception of school, we're teaching certain abilities, we're teaching math literacy, we're teaching reading literacy, we're teaching knowledge of history. And I wonder whether you're talking about an ability or a skill, Hadi? So for me, I actually think the most important skill or ability that students can learn is the ability to continue learning. We are done with a time where you study for 12 years or 16 years and then you work for some number of years. It's not this two-phased approach anymore. People or adults are going to need to continue learning. If you graduate from university right now, the world in 10 years is going to be so different that you need to plan to do more learning every decade or every five years to stay up-to-date. And we can't know exactly what those things are going to be. So teaching how to learn and teaching a love of learning, those are probably the most important skills that school can actually impart on students. Which is why it's so important to make it creative because then you want to do it, rather than being told you have to do it to pass the test. I would say also problem solving skills and the ability to rise above the challenges of the present and imagine the future. Whether those challenges of the present are political or technological, I think it's important. I mean, I think the rapid changes that are happening in the world will demand that from young people, even from adults. I mean, and let me go back to mathematics and say, you know, people keep saying, I was listening to someone saying, well, STEM is going to remain important. So mathematics is going to remain important. And I say, yes, but what mathematics? Exactly, which parts? What mathematics? There's some mathematics that has seen as valuable, but it's not going to be important anymore because in fact, you know, we're going to have machines that do that for us. And so so it's going to demand of us to describe what mathematics content going to teach. But then why do you teach it? Because it's going to it's going to have to equip you for something else. And here's an exercise that I played with my students. Many years ago, before machine learnings, I, you know, students had this view that mathematics, you've got to memorize these formulas. You've got to whatever you can copy. They used to like one to copy. And one day I said to them, we're going to have a test. It's going to be an open book test. You can bring anything. We normally write one hour test. This time you have the whole two hours. And I said 10 problems and I put them in the class after school and they were amazed. Like they thought I'm the most generous teacher they've ever seen. None of their math teachers had ever allowed them to bring books, textbooks. I said, whatever you want, you bring. And they said there, problem number one, the book wasn't helpful because it required them. It didn't require them just to, to, you know, it wasn't a cut and paste of the problem in the, in the, in the textbook. They needed to think more. The, the, the guide would, if they knew what they were doing, the book would have been helpful, right? Because they would know which, which formula and why does it work in this context and not that one and so on and so forth. And, and you make applied problems. They, they apply what they learned in a situation and suddenly it was difficult and it was just to make them move from the perception that, that you've got to memorize particular some, some facts and that's knowledge and that's going to get you somewhere. And I think we're going to think about what we teach, what maths and also why and then how. I think all of those questions are important. At the moment, much of our education is, is mainly, you teach, you reproduce what you've been taught and voila, you've got a certificate, then you expect a job. And when you get there to the job, the employer is not happy because in fact, you can't do what you're supposed to do. And then they go back and say, well, university, you're not doing, you know. So, so this, we're going to have to rethink what, what, what, what, what, what is this learning? Why do we do it? And what, for what? One of the gifts of a, of a truly good teacher is to teach how to think. Yeah. To teach how to even conceive of the problem before approaching the problem. One, one thing she was saying that just made me think is, I, I question everybody of us has gone through the school system and you're familiar with the idea of taking a test and not having the books. What job or activity in the future beyond school would you ever be in where they say, you need to do this, but you can't access the internet. I don't reference any. I don't reference any for you. You know, unless you're going to speak to anybody, you've got to do it yourself. Just do it on your own. It is, there's nothing that is preparing you for it. We should rethink and say, you have full access to the internet and then come up with problems that challenge you with that access to resources, which will be higher level problems, which is what today's society demands. I had a lovely, just in case of people on this, this meaningful piece. We have a wonderful partner that we collaborate with in Kenya in early childhood. And what they find is that the parents are just so focused in on, they want their children to read. They have to read. They have to read. They have to read. And their expectation is that the teachers will be teaching them to read irrespective of their age. And it's, it's just most children are just not ready at that point. And there's been studies that have been conducted that show that actually it doesn't, it doesn't give any advantage to start the formalized types of reading much earlier in a child's life. By the time they get to 11, if they're studied much later, they get to the same place because their brains have to go through the process of the wiring. So what our partner does is it gets the parents and sits them down and gets them all to copy out a Chinese character. And they repeat it and repeat it and repeat it until they can do it by themselves without being prompted. And then when everybody's so happy that they can copy this down, they then ask the parents, well, what does it mean? And then hopefully they get the realization that forcing children just to memorize and route learn and things, you've got to associate meaning. And that's why I think the linear approach that we have at this point in time, where we are still locked in an education system that was developed in order to produce factory workers, members of the military, or academic professors. Instead, we've got a world now where we can create meaning through the subjects by using technology to illustrate how the things that we're learning, the subjects that we're learning, have relevance in the world. The meaning is such an important part of the education system that we need to focus on. Right. And in a lot of schools in the US today, we're seeing something that we call the fifth grade cliff. So when children are taught to the test and they're taught to the test because schools are increasingly given funding as a function of how those children have done on the test, if you teach to the test, then you're not teaching for meaning. And what happens is at the point when you're 11 or 12 and you're asked to extract meaning, you don't know how to do that because that's not what you've been taught. And there's no reason to start that way either. And that doesn't just happen in the US. That's happening in, I know, in the UK. And the consequence of that is that when our students are then applying to go to university, they can't, almost they can't speak. They don't know they're not able to answer the questions because they're almost brainwashed to focus in one particular direction. But if we take a step back and think about those students who are taking their examinations and they're sitting examinations in the UK, 20 examinations, one and a half hours long, maybe two, in a space of three weeks, I'm concerned about the mental health. I'm concerned about why are we doing this to them? What are we achieving? Again, it's what you said, Harry, as well. They will never be asked this in the next month, let alone the next 10 years. So if I was to go back to your question and you said, you know, why are we here? You know, I want them to make sure that people are learning continuously. I'd say brilliant, yes. But also to remember that they are humans and we need to make sure they are learning the human skills as well, what they are. Our children are fluent in digital technology. This is their language now. They will teach you, not the other way around. But what they may forget is what it's like to be a human and what it's like to connect with another individual, what it's like to have empathy, what it's like to make sure that you care kindness, fear. And this is something which whatever we decide to do, whatever we all decide to do, this is so vitally important now more than ever. I agree. What we sometimes call cell, socio-emotional learning, is such an important part of learning to learn, an important part of being a citizen of the world today. It's always been important, but it can be left out inadvertently of the educational system or even the informal learning system, even how parents teach their children. Someone asked me recently if I knew the best way to teach her three-year-old to read. And did I think that putting tags on every object in the house would help the kid learn words? And in fact, my parents did that. They put tags on everything in the house. All I remember is that there were tags. I don't remember ever. Same thing with, has anyone ever used Cuisinair rods? So we used Cuisinair rods in my school. I went to an experimental school, and there were lots of excellent things about it. And Cuisinair rods, each color and each length, represents a number. I don't actually remember the lengths. I only remember the colors. It didn't be no good whatsoever. So when you add blue and green, you get yellow. Wait. And that wasn't really the point. But no one explained that to me. They just said, well, here's the blue one. And we can really easily get caught up in that kind of thing. Once again, here I would draw a distinction between skills and capacities. And Andrea, you're bringing up the very important point that we want to ensure that our children, that all of us, have capacities such as love, empathy, curiosity, a desire to learn, ability to or desire to make the world a better place. The kinds of things that make us good people and that help us learn in order to fulfill those goals. And here's the thing, I mean, the kind of things that make us good people. That's one of the things that's supposed to make us good people that doesn't pop up when we talk about this empathy. I agree with all of that list. And I keep thinking the knowledge command, the ability to command knowledge is going to be not as important as the ability to navigate knowledge that you will get out there. And ethical scrutiny is going to be key. Do you know what I mean? Absolutely. It's going to be key because not all knowledge is equal. The understanding, the inequity of knowledge is going to be key. It might help you to be more empathetic. But actually, it might help you be able to make good decisions about what to throw out and what to run with, what to use, how, when, or not. And I think that's part, for me, that's a big part of the kind of things that make us human, in addition to empathy and so on and so forth. Because, and for me, that's actually what's bringing our world to its knees, to the ground. It's this little bit that's not there. The lack of a moral compass. Exactly. But what helps you do that? I mean, you know, and we work with young people. I mean, I'm a vice chancellor of the university. 29,000 students. I'm welcoming 18 and 17 year olds to my campus on Saturday. Tomorrow, yes. I land and I welcome them. And I keep thinking they're going to be with us for the whole six months. Can you imagine what they're exposed to? We're on the southern tip of the continent. They come from over 100 countries in the world. They're 18, they're 19, that we get the brightest because we're the top university in the continent. What is it that I need to tell them that's going to sharpen that ethical scrutiny? Do you see what I mean? Because they're going to have to make those decisions on campus. They're going to get political messages. They're going to get pseudo signs. They're going to get all sorts of things. And they've got to make, and I think that's part of what we say it's not. It's the what, the why, the how. For me, all of that is important and what makes us human. Yeah, I agree with you. And there's a flip side to that. One of the initiatives at the World Economic Forum is the media entertainment and information initiative. And this year, not surprisingly, there was a lot of talk in our meeting the other day about fake news and about a new sense of what it means to teach media literacy to young people and to adults. And I think that might be the other side of the coin. A moral compass and the ability to detect that which is good and that which is bad, to read between the lines, so to speak, in what's delivered to you as information or as entertainment or as news. Yeah. So this capacity, this notion of teaching for capacities, instead of teaching for skills or at the very least as a basis for teaching skills, I think one of those capacities that I see really under represented in the schools. And I wonder what, I'm surprised I haven't heard more about it, is collaboration. And when you said you're never going to be told, Hadi, you said you're never going to be asked to do something without a book. What I immediately thought of. Or without another person. Without another person, right, exactly. I had a wonderful conversation with the head of HR for a very, very large international company yesterday, the day before yesterday. And she was saying that she's struggling to come up with a new way of assessing the employees in her company. Why? Well, now they work in teams. But how do you assess a person in a team? And I thought, well, we want people to collaborate. It's the same thing in schools, by giving grades to individuals and saying, don't copy other people's work. You're basically saying, don't learn how to collaborate. And then go out into the world and be successful without knowing how to collaborate. And that's certainly a recipe for disaster. And of course, if you work in an educational institution, it's amazing, right, assessment. That's what I said. This repeat changes are going to have an impact also on how we assess. So exam halls, of course, is individual. And children must put the books aside. And then things develop. OK, now you must put your phones aside because your phone is going to tell you the answer, right? Now technology develops. Now you must take your watch aside. OK, so I'll say to some of my colleagues, what's next? What's next? Glasses. We have to check your glasses. OK, now what's next? Buttons. I said, but this is not the issue. We're not solving the right problem, right? It is understanding what is it that we are assessing and how should we assess. It's nonsensical. The next thing will be buttons. So we've got to think about what is it that we are asking? People collaborate. National, that's how we solve problems. Yeah, we've got all the greatest innovations in technology or science. They're building on what other people have built on using that to build on top of it. And you early on mentioned that what Code.org is doing is trying to teach programming. And I really think we're trying to teach creativity and collaboration through computer science. And one great way to think about it is imagine a school project where maybe you and two or three other students are challenged to build and design an app. And it starts with what societal problem do you want to solve? How would you design your app? Then doing the coding to make the app, as well as the design for the user interface. And then maybe a discussion about the ethical implication of this thing that you released into the world. In doing that, you teach collaboration. You teach creativity. There is a skill of how to code that in today's language, which will probably be out of date in five years. But at least you learned how to pick something up to sort of communicate the dream you had and put it into reality. That collaboration and that creativity is so hard to teach in the subjects that the rest of our school system is trying to teach. And that is the reason to teach this stuff. Because it's so hard to teach, it's so hard to assess. Exactly. And I think that's the killer. Because creativity is very difficult to assess to say, right, okay, so how am I sure they have learned? As a result of that, then that's why it's not given the priority. Whereas the most important thing is the journey. And going back to the collaboration, actually, the best lessons I've seen in many schools, the best practice I could ever preach to teachers is when we see group work, is when you encourage learning from each other. Not just in classrooms, but also on the teacher level as well. But again, if we're going back to a testing phase and we're testing by ourselves, and as an individual I'm being assessed, that's when that value is broken down ever so slightly. Yeah, John, I'd like to hear your thoughts. Yeah, just building on Andrea's point. I think this teaching to the test is a real challenge. And what we've learned here this week is a lot of really interesting interventions through machine learning and artificial intelligence with regards to hiring and recruiting and their ability to do a lot of pre-screening for individuals. And that pre-screening almost excludes their academic work, has no reference to it at all. And yet this obsession we have with testing and testing and testing is based on a paradigm that this will ultimately lead to a grade on a piece of paper that will entitle you to a job. And the children of today just will not emerge into that world. So that contract is broken now. So we have to start adjusting our methodologies to assess and not look at single-point grades based on individual capabilities. And when I speak to ministers of education about this, they feel that I'm some sort of woolly, crazy individual who's talking about learning through play. You're not alone. You're not alone. Learning through play doesn't invoke grit and determination. Oh, well, you know, the world's not nice. And you've got to really ensure that children understand that. And it's like, this is craziness. If you've seen the passion that is generated in children when they're given a real-world problem and a group together, we run a program called First Lego League where they're given these real-world problems. They use coding, they use robotics in order to get that solution. And the passion and energy that's generated through those children doing that. And through the research, it shows there's a dramatic increase in those children's problem solving skills and a dramatic increase in their collaboration. So the research is rich. And we need to start making the change soon. And I want to make sure that all of these points, which are all important but which can lead us in so many different directions, if I asked each of you for one best practice, one thing you'd want to put in place to improve learning, young people, let's say, as well as adults, to improve learning for the future. Hadi, can I start with you? Is there one best practice? One thing- Teach computer science. And sign it. I find that one a dangerous one, I have to say. Well, I would say more to teach computer science with a focus on collaboration and creativity. Yeah, exactly. Because it's not about teaching coding. Computer science can include teaching machine learning or some other aspect of computer science. For a decade, for almost a decade, Seymour Papert's office was next to my office. And we would meet in the hallway and I would tease him about what I called the Papert in the Box problem, which was that kids learned amazing things from Lego logo, for example, when Seymour was in the room. Less so when other people were leading the lessons. And this was a problem he had for decades. In fact, his funding was cut in the 70s initially by the Defense Department because he couldn't assess what children were learning. And so when you say, teach computer science, when I say, that sounds dangerous to me, not because I disagree that teaching computer science can be very important, but it depends how it's taught. How it's taught and why it's taught. Right. Yeah, Andrea, I'm gonna come this way. I think for me, it's just quite simple. To value creativity, not just at the beginning of someone's life, but all the way through. Yeah, that's great. Yeah, I would implement learning through play in all forums for children from zero to 11 to provide them with the foundations of skills. Great. Foundations of skills. Can you explain that a little bit? Yeah, to enable them to have the developmental opportunities so that as they're going through that critical neurological evolution that takes place during that phase that we're really focusing on the critical skills like problem solving, critical thinking, creativity and enabling those pathways and connectivity such that then as they get older, they can supplement that with knowledge and therefore have a really rich understanding of how to impact the world in the future. That's wonderful, thanks, Hattie. At UCT, we have a system of giving students credits for co-curricular activities that they do. These are of course optional. They may, a student might choose to be part of a community engagement program that we run in the university, we've got formal programs and they sign up and they do particular activities. They log this criteria, they log activities and at the end of the semester, they'll be graded whether that's a gold, silver or bronze and it goes onto their transcript and the skills that they learn through their teamwork, collaboration, problem solving or whatever. And sometimes they may be serving on the student's representative council or in residences, it may be that they're running the resident students council and stuff like that. We develop this system to give students credits for this because we believe that through these activities that are on our campus, they learn certain skills that they wouldn't have learned if they didn't get involved and they have a choice. Some choose not to participate in those and go only for the formal modules and that's okay. But if you go to the other side, we're saying you also have to be recognized for that and we will put that on the transcript. We find, we have a way of assessing, we put that on the transcript and the employer can see the additional skills that you've learned. So we have a little time for your participation in this and I'd ask you either for a best practice that you hope to see in the future of learning or for a question of one of the panelists. Do we have a? There's multiple questions. Yeah, so let's start over here. I saw a hand at the end of this row. Hi, Mark Verneuil, I think School of Creative Leadership. I think we always say that we learn through experience. As a matter of fact, we don't. We learn through reflecting on experience. Yeah. And I had a colleague who at a certain point went straight through the ranks in the company I worked in and at a speed I didn't understand and was unprecedented. And I called him up, I said, what did you do? And he didn't really quite understand. And I had to ask it a couple of different ways and at a certain point he learned that every day at the end of the day, he sent himself a voicemail with what he learned and he listened to it the next day. So when we talk about lifelong learning and reflection, it can be that practical. That's a lovely point. Thank you very much. Yeah. Hi, good morning. I was listening to you to talk so passionate about computer science. I'm from the design field. So I've been working in design for the last 20 years and I'm really surprised that we are not teaching design to children because design is one of the most human-centered disciplines we have. It's about problem solving. It's about sustainability. It's about collaboration. It's about rethinking and it's about combining intelligent and academic thinking with reality and with pragmatical aspects of our days. It's extremely flexible. So it's able to answer when the context change very rapidly. So I really think then that's also one of my questions. This is part of the question of, we need as a society to question what we teach and why. Design should be... People think we don't teach art because there's not enough jobs for artists and that's true if you define artists in this very minuscule kind of way except when you think anybody who's creating an app in this tech field that is struggling to hire people, they need artists. Anybody who's in the entertainment field. If you look carefully into design, you see the combination of elements that we have in this discipline from cultural, to politics, social, to sustainable, to materials, to engineer. So everything is here. Thank you. There is another thing which is... I'm gonna go to someone else and then come back. That notion of teaching design, I think, is something that we may see in the near future because there's so much more of a focus on design thinking. Thinking. Absolutely. Yep. Hello. I run a research center focused on the future of education and I feel that one of the biggest challenges is change management. My question is how to re-educate the educators. Ah. Yeah. Andrea, let's start with you. You do a fair amount of that. Of change management. Yes. Well, again, it's what Harry said, is that they bring the life of, the long life of learning as a teacher. That's my, you know, this is it. I've come to Davos for one reason only to learn. And again, it's investing in teachers. And I'm sorry I'm talking about the teacher profession, but this is my world. I don't think that teachers, they finish and they are ready and right turn to the classroom the moment they get the qualification. It's the ongoing investment and quality development of teachers throughout their entire career and beyond that needs to be absolutely recognized and taking my school practice into account. That's where things have transformed the learning of our students and of our teachers and how we've had exceptional results through the years. Can I go to your design question? So in the UK system, art and design are connected in a very rich way. However, design technology now, we are struggling to find teachers to put in classrooms. And I'm devastated because it's one of the most fulfilling and rich qualifications, not just to teach but to watch students learn because they are learning about the industrial processes and again the future of the workplace. And this subject is so rich and I'm completely with you with that one. Can I, I mean, I think that's a very important question you asked, right? My view and I'm an educator is that what we really teach is ourselves. I teach myself. I mean, I told you, I'm vice chancellor of the university. And this is shocking to people in my position and in my country. If you Google me, you'll see that I'm regarded as controversial. But that's simply because I'm just being me and I believe that what we do as educators is we teach ourselves. So if we're going to have a proper capacity development program for teachers, it's not to just say do this. It's about who they are becoming and I would focus on a teacher education program that works on who they become because it's only when they become that that they will teach it. So this, what we've been talking about, it's also, I mean, it reflects who you are, what you learn. So when I spend time going to residences, every week, every two weeks, and I'm in a residence, whether students are angry with me that week or not and I go and sometimes I walk and they say, sit down, we don't like what you did the other day and I sit down and I say, give it to me. And my colleagues think it's dangerous, don't go. But I think it's important to have the connection. They have to know that this is what we value and this is what I'm teaching is me and they know that they can get it and I think we should. And I also believe that children learn better from the people they love. The idea of a teacher as a scary person or a person who knows everything, can never get anything wrong is part of the problem, actually in terms of teacher education, that the teachers can never say, hmm, I actually don't know that. Can we find this out together? And that research actually backs that up, especially for children who are at risk of not learning. Either because they have a learning disability or they're in an under-resourced school. That bond between the teacher and the student predicts the best learning outcomes. And we forget that sometimes. We definitely forget that a lot of the time. Likewise with the bond between students. I've been working on technology that can be used to tutor students. But rather than being the teacher, the technology is another student who learns with the child and creates a bond with the child around learning together, around collaborating. And it's successful because of the heart bond that it creates before any of the collaborative learning takes place. Other points, yeah. Like how we have the World Economic Forum. Is there some sort of forum or something similar where you have best practices so you have the Montessori with the Waldorf and the Regio and I'm not familiar with all the other types of education where everyone gathers together with the coding and the Lego and where you have a yearly discussion of... That's a really great question. One of the things I noticed looking at the guest list here is there's only one education minister at the World Economic Forum. And one of the reasons for that, and I actually had a challenge with this, literally at the exact same time this week, there's something called the Education World Forum happening in London where 100 ministers of education are meeting to talk about the future of education. And there's this total mismatch. I know, where are the teachers, right? Yeah, exactly. You guys. Yeah, fascinating, isn't it? In the spring, the Varkey Foundation runs the Global Economic Skills Forum and a lot of ministers of education come, but also hundreds and hundreds of teachers come. And that mixture of those two groups of people is magic. That's great. Yeah, one more question. Yep. Very nice. And for us parents, I would like to just ask, what do you do today? I mean, this is what you've talked about is all in the coming future. Now, what do you do when you have teenagers who come and ask you, why do I have to learn this by heart? You learned it because you didn't have internet. If I need to know geography and all the names of all these C's, and I just click on a button and I have it. Why do I have to learn it by heart? And not only in geography, I mean, I'm just taking an example. How do you answer that teenager who wants to learn but finds a 3D stupid? Sorry. That's the school. Wow. But I would say, I mean, for the child, for your teenager, talk to them about their learning, their approach, and try to stimulate their passion for the learning process. And understand in the pressure of the test and the absorption, it's really challenging. But children are fantastic agents of change as well. Youth are fantastic agents of change. And we have seen many examples actually here in the World Economic Forum of teenagers being the catalysts that enable the reform that is required in society. So I would encourage them, encourage them to use their voice. They do. In history, they were supposed to learn something about the city and they entered into politics. But the teacher said, we're not teaching you politics today, we have to learn history. And he said, yeah, but politics today is linked to history before. So why don't you add it to it? And the teacher is unfortunately unable to do that. I think that what John says about change and young people being agents of change is very important. When I was a master's student in the UK, a long time ago, I asked a question of the professor. I said this theory that you're teaching us doesn't account for data from such and such a language. And he drew himself up and he said, Miss Cassell, in this classroom, I ask the questions. I couldn't ask a question for the rest of the class because my jaw had dropped so low. We've come a long way since then. But as you've heard today, we have a long way to go. But I think the things that we've discussed here really are important for us as individuals, as managers, as employees, as parents, as teachers and as students. And I really wanna thank you because you've made this conversation a lot deeper than it could have been. You've really gone to the important points. You've gone to the essential. And in the same way, a lot of what we've talked about is about capacity. What underlies the individual courses that we take, the individual skills we want students to learn? What are those capacities, those abilities, those goals? And you've really outlined that. You've really pushed us towards that conversation in a very strong way that will work equally well in different situations for different ages and in different countries. So thank you and thank you all very much.