Imagine you are a recent graduate with a knack for physics and math. Unable to find work at a university, you take a menial
job in a patent office, but continue to mull over your research ideas on the side. Despite your employment frustrations, you
persist in your research, eventually proposing a bold new theory. But you and your ideas face persistent criticism from colleagues.
If you think you have heard this story before, you just might be right. This was the struggle faced by former patent clerk
and father of modern physics, Albert Einstein. It took many years before the scientific community embraced his theory on space
and time, which ultimately changed the way we understand the universe.
For scientists, the risk of grossly misinterpreting ideas or facing the blatant disapproval of peers comes with the territory.
But taking these risks is not just a hallmark of a good scientist. Students engaged in active learning must also take these
"intellectual risks," which involve sharing new and tentative ideas, asking questions, or trying new procedures. Considered
"risky" because there is always a chance that the student may be mistaken, intellectual risk-taking (IRT) is an integral part
of successful learning and educational growth in the classroom.
"IRT is a catalyst for learning," says Dr. Tracy Solomon, a developmental psychologist at The Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids).
Solomon adds that for an elementary school child, sharing a tentative idea in front of the teacher and peers may be nerve-wracking.
"One of the things holding a kid back from IRT is they are afraid to put up their hand and say something that's out of the
norm." This is particularly true for subjects such as science and math, where there is a general perception that these subjects
are for the "smart kids."
Impediments to intellectual risk-taking
This reluctance to take intellectual risks may continue as a child gets older. According to a recent study conducted at the
University of Oregon, a child's willingness to take intellectual risks when learning science fades with age. The study looked
at intellectual risk-taking in 585 students learning marine science in the third grade through to the sixth grade.
The research showed that students who took more intellectual risks not only had a larger interest in science, but a strong
creative sense of self-efficacy; that is, they felt confident in their ability to conjure useful ideas, develop their own
scientific experiments, and come up with new ways to tackle a scientific problem.
"Creative self-efficacy is the sense of how much you can bring about change in your environment," says Solomon. This sense
shapes a child's attitude towards learning and approaching school-related tasks, which in turn is linked to an aspect of personality
called "locus of control," the extent to which we believe our own actions influence life events. As one can imagine, all of
this is related to self-esteem; in this context, the more a child has, the less worried they will feel about taking intellectual
risks.
When it comes to learning, a student's locus can be external, meaning that the student believes external factors, such as
gaining teacher or peer approval, are what mainly influence their own learning. In contrast, a student with an internal locus
of control may want to learn a subject because something inside her is motivating her to learn it. For these students, personal
satisfaction is what drives them to find a solution to a difficult math problem.
"It's best when learning is intrinsically rewarding, rather than extrinsically rewarding," Solomon says. When internal rewards
drive learning, kids may be more likely to take intellectual risks, she explains. This way, a child is less likely to feel
discouraged when facing resistance, such as criticism from a peer or teacher, since they do not value these external factors
as much. "That internal locus of control allows you to weather the storm. So when you get resistance it allows you to say
'Oh that's funny that she responded that way,' and not, 'Oh, I'm just not good at it'."
The way we are schooled
One reason there is an age-related decline in IRT may be because the focus of schooling changes as we age. "When you're younger,
everything is a hypothesis. You're quite confident in asking questions provided that you're in an environment where you are
not being shut down. Teachers are trying to set children up to be eager participants," says Solomon.
But as time goes by, the difficulty of the subject increases and teachers may be more focused on getting through the curriculum.
"As kids get older, they realize that benefits accrue to certain students with external markers [such as good grades and high
test scores]. They go more for those external markers. This takes over the genuine learning," says Solomon.
Peter Chaban, an education expert and AboutKidsHealth columnist, suggests that it is not just students driving this shift.
"In our educational environment, we're just interested in outcomes, not process," he says. "We measure performance in terms
of standardized testing, so teachers have a tendency to push toward outcomes."
The result is more focus on whether the child gets the answer right or wrong, as opposed to how they arrive at the answer.
An outcome-driven curriculum leaves little room for reflective processing, which involves using critical thinking and problem-solving
skills. It is during this process that we take those intellectual risks.
Nurturing IRT from grade school to university
The University of Oregon study also found that kids who took intellectual risks felt their teachers supported them by listening
to their ideas and providing encouraging feedback. "When a child has interest in something, whether it's science or something
else, the role of the teacher is to nurture that interest," says Chaban. "Kids really appreciate teachers being interested
in their ideas and learning." The more nurturing a teacher is of a child's interest, the more likely intellectual risks will
be taken on in the future, he adds.
The trick is to give a child enough of a challenge to keep them interested, without challenging them into frustration. "Say
a kid gets interested in tennis," says Chaban. "If he plays against a kid who is really good, and who beats him all the time,
then he gets anxious and he doesn't want to play. But if he plays against a kid who is crummy, then eventually he gets bored
and loses interest again."
Answering a question that you are not entirely sure of can seem more daunting in a larger class, as in first or second year
university courses. Many institutes are tackling this problem by giving each student a hand-held device called a "clicker,"
common on game shows like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. In the classroom, the teacher poses a multiple-choice question to
the class, typically on a PowerPoint slide. Students can "vote" on the correct answer by using their clickers. Classroom responses
are generated in real-time, and a histogram showing the number of students who chose each answer is shown to the class. Because
it maintains anonymity, clickers have proven a successful way to engage students.
Nurturing IRT at home
Setbacks are an inevitable part of the learning process. What matters is how you respond to those roadblocks. Solomon says
that by unconsciously removing or lessening challenges facing a child, parents counter the "try and try again" message. Cultivating
a child's interest by encouraging them to work through challenges gives them the staying power to overcome frustration. Getting
past these roadblocks instils the self-confidence a child needs to take more of those brainy ventures.
Why don't you ask them why the sky is blue?
Parents can help by having thought-provoking conversations with their children at home. The act of making hot chocolate, for
instance, can turn into a discussion on how solid molecules dissolve in liquid. "So you just made chocolate milk with Quick,"
says Solomon. "Why do you think the milk turns brown, instead of having globs?" These types of conversations at home instil
a sense in children that it is OK to enquire – no matter how bizarre the question. Do this enough and "kids go to school with
an enquiring mindset," says Solomon.
And parents do not have to be scientists to have these kinds of thought-provoking conversations with their children. Anyone
with a question and an internet connection can look up a question with the click of a mouse.
Are good and bad risks related?
If a child takes more brainy risks, does this mean they are less willing to take the risks that are not so salutary, like
excessive drinking and experimenting with drugs?
This is not entirely clear. On the one hand, engaging in risky behaviour and not taking intellectual risks are often about
reaping the same external rewards – gaining peer approval. In this light, the answer may be yes. But on the other hand, there
may be an internal quality about a general risk-taker, one who enjoys engaging in both the "good" and "bad" types of risks,
that increases the likelihood of risk-taking.
So will encouraging a child to take more intellectual risks result in them altering our understanding of the universe? Maybe
not, but if Einstein had decided to play it safe in the patent office, we might still be living in the clockwork universe.
Think of it like a lottery: if you buy a ticket, you may not win a million, but if you do not buy a ticket you are guaranteed
not to.
For most kids and adults, risks are not about winning a million dollars or becoming the poster boy for genius. They are small
and incremental discoveries adding to a body of knowledge, skill, and understanding. But the act of taking the risk itself
involves resilience, self-esteem, and the ability to disregard the less charitable opinions of others. This requires a healthy
knowledge and understanding of oneself. As skills go, these are good ones for any child to possess.
Nira Datta
Medical Writer/Editor, AboutKidsHealth
