A WISE COURSE

Educating for Wisdom in the 21st Century

Jay Martin Hays

Key Terms

Curriculum Reasoning Systems Thinking Education Judgement Assessment Professional Development Critical Thinking Reflective Action Sustainability

ABSTRACT

This chapter covers a number of issues relating to wisdom learning, or, more specifically, educating for wisdom. The author starts from the position that greater wisdom is needed in the world, and that wisdom can be learned. Institutions of higher learning, he asserts, are obligated to foster the development of wisdom, though have been remiss in doing so.

Wisdom, here, is defined simply as doing the right thing for the greater good, all things considered. In laying the groundwork for a possible wisdom curriculum, or what he refers to as "a wise course", the three elements of this definition—right thing, greater good, all things considered—are "unpacked". Explicating these elements reveals the philosophy, aspirations, and attributes of one possible wisdom curriculum that appears to redress a range of shortcomings found amongst university graduates and meets at least some of the criteria of wisdom and expectations held of those entering and thriving in the professions. Inherent and implicit in this definition is that “a wise course” is, by nature, sustainable, and this chapter also briefly explains how and why this is so.

In addition to these foundations of a wisdom curriculum, the author addresses, in turn, the importance of educating for wisdom, the challenges of educating for wisdom, the nature of educating for wisdom, and ultimately sets forth the key features of "a wise course", including how outcomes might be assessed. The heart of the "wise course" proposed by the author is the RJRA model, advanced elsewhere in the literature and the subject of on-going research. The RJRA model (RJRA standing for Reasoning, Judgement, and Reflective Action), comprises a set of capabilities and dispositions assessed as essential in the complex, global world of the 21st Century. These capabilities and dispositions involve skills, tools, processes, and disciplines re-lated to RJRA, plus Critical Thinking, complex problem-solving, creativity, decision-making, and planning, viewed through an ethics lens, and continually referenced to local and global context.

Importantly, these same 21st Century capabilities and dispositions are central to sustainability, and here, specifically to sustainable learning and education. In essence, “a wise course” and the “wising up” of management education embody sustainability and engender sustainable teaching and learning practice.The curriculum framework and "wise course" presented in this chapter should be of interest to program administrators and curriculum developers in tertiary education, wisdom scholars, and anyone concerned with the “wising up” of management education and professional development.

Introduction

Educating for wisdom should not be dismissed as idealistic, impractical, irrelevant, or impossible. It is feasible, reasonable, and desirable, if not critical. The fact that educating for wisdom has not gained much traction in mainstream university or professional development programs does not mean that it should not be pursued more assiduously. There are understandable if misplaced reasons why educating for wisdom has been spurned, deferred, and under-publicised, and this chapter raises and attempts to counter the primary rationalisations for opposition. While some resistance is conscious and even deliberate, a large part of the problem is a general lack of awareness of what wisdom education is and that educating for wisdom is possible and needed. This chapter explores these issues.

In addition to the aforementioned issues, this chapter addresses the following themes:

The importance of educating for wisdom.

The challenges of educating for wisdom.

The nature of educating for wisdom.

The attributes of a "course in wisdom" (or a wise course).

The relationship between wisdom and sustainability, and how and why “a wise course” is sustainable.

These themes presuppose that wisdom can be learned and that institutions of higher learning can and should play a role in developing wisdom. Some support for these presuppositions is provided further on. The issues also assume that a basic, shared understanding and acceptance of what wisdom is exists or can be attained. This may never be entirely possible. Disagreement and wide diversity in interpretation are rife. This chapter does not attempt to provide a comprehensive and defensible explanation of wisdom or even to influence readers toward a particular belief, attitude, or conception of wisdom. There is an extensive range and a rich historical literature on wisdom readers can refer to.1 For our purposes here, we begin with this simple if broad definition:

Wisdom is doing the right thing for the greater good, all things considered.2

As with so much in life, simplicity is not always what it seems. Explicating this definition just briefly, we find it implicitly covers an array of qualities or assumptions about wisdom. These are important, here, as we aim toward developing a curriculum for wisdom. A wise course would have to address these inferred topics and develop their associated capabilities and dispositions in

some way. There are three interrelated elements or conditions inherent in this concept of wisdom, as depicted in the wisdom triangle diagram (Figure 1). Each element is complex and essential.

1 Most of the sources in the reference list at the end of this chapter have to do with wisdom. Some of the sources underpinning the concept and applicability of wisdom as conceived in this chapter include: Baltes and Staudinger (2000), Bierly et al (2000), Jones and Culliney (1998), Kitchener and Brenner (1990), Korac-Kakabadse, et al (2004), Lynch (1999), McKenna et al (2009), Nonaka and Toyama (2007), Rowley (2006), Smith (2007), Sternberg (1998)2 This is essentially the definition presented and explained variously in Hays (2008; 2010; 2013b; and in press).

The right thing. The right thing implies an ethical dimension to wisdom but does not "push" a particular set of values and ideals. Wise individuals are conscious of what they care about and what their motives are for acting as they do. They remain true to their values. Thus, there is strength and consistency in their beliefs and aspirations and authenticity between thought and action. This may require considerable courage because "the right thing to do" may be unpopular or unprecedented. The right thing may be complicated, risky, and expensive. To make matters worse, there are likely to be competing options on offer that appear easier, cheaper, or otherwise more attractive, including doing nothing. So, the wise are courageous (Hays, in press). They act on their convictions, if only to speak out when they see lack of wisdom around them. Lack of wisdom is evident in waste, injustice, avarice, and abuse—generally behaviour that undermines the current and future health and well-being of people and planet. This is one of the key links to sustainability, with the wise, more often than not, doing the right thing for the greater good, all things considered.

The right thing implies more than ethical considerations and character virtues, however. It encompasses intellectual fortitude. Not intelligence, per se (as in cleverness and traditional views of IQ), but habits of mind that pose and pursue answers to important questions—those that challenge the way things are, explore impediments, and seek betterment. These include dispositions and qualities such as curiosity, discipline, critical thinking, and complex problem-solving. As will be discussed further on, the capabilities of and dedication toward reasoning, judgement, and reflective action are particularly important.

The greater good. The greater good essentially demands of the wise that they work to improve themselves and change the world for the better, overcoming the limitations and motives of self-interest. Whilst altruism may be difficult to attain or sustain, the wise always seek to at least balance self-interest with general betterment. As above, they must first know themselves and remain conscious of the desires, fears, and beliefs that influence their thinking, decisions, and ultimate action in the world. They must, as I have outlined elsewhere, get over themselves (Hays, 2014a). At the minimum, the greater good causes us to ask questions such as the following before we make final decisions or elect a given course of action:

How will this decision or strategy impact all stakeholders today and in the long-term?

Who are all the stakeholders that might be touched by or should have a say in this decision or course of action?

What is my (or our) personal "stake" in this decision or strategy? How might our gain or fear of loss be motivating our thinking or limiting our options?

What are the "trade-offs" (upsides and downsides) of this decision or course of action; and, on balance, do they favour the greater good and long-term consequences?

A course of action that neglects, undermines, negatively impacts, or obscures any stakeholders or other issues and concerns is probably unwise and unsustainable.

All things considered. All things considered is, perhaps, the crux of wisdom—its challenge and its charge. One may never know all: some things remain unknowable; technology and time may

Right Thing

Greater Good

All Things Considered

Figure 1. Three elements of wisdom.

constrain what we can discover.3 We may not have all the information and answers; we may not even know what best questions to ask. But the mandate maintains: as much should be understood in any given circumstance as possible before rash conclusions are drawn, decisions made, actions embarked upon. Again, we ask: Who are the stakeholders involved and how will they be affected? What are the variables, and how are they likely to respond to intervention? As best as can be ascertained, what are the potential costs of a proposed remedy or solution? How might our assumptions, biases, beliefs, values, perceptions, and attitudes undermine our ability to objectively see things as they are and accurately assess the circumstances and context within which we are working?

Wisdom takes time. It considers all the angles. Wisdom accepts that all things hang together in intricate and complex fashion; that problems, issues, and opportunities are linked: that any course of action will have consequences and implications, some subtle, some dramatic—perhaps not immediately felt, but inevitable. The wise down through the ages have always understood this, possessing an implicit if non-technical appreciation for systems thinking, balance, harmony, integration, and wholism.4 The unwise have never known this or have cared little, placing self-interest, immediate gratification, and short-term value ahead of future outcomes; taking short-cuts and preferring and pursuing cheap, quick, and ostensibly-obvious solutions to problems that cannot possibly be sufficiently addressed by such superficial or one-dimensional approaches. Sustainability forbids such profligate, irresponsible behaviour.

Thus, wisdom may not appear decisive, clever, popular, politically correct, economical, efficient, or sexy. It is, by contrast, reasoned, deliberative, encompassing, and inclusive, and will demonstrate principled judgement and acute foresight. More than anything, this way of thinking, and attendant tools and techniques for heightening the reasoning, problem-solving, decision-making, and planning processes, are what wisdom is and depends upon. These higher-order capabilities and dispositions can be developed and encouraged, but, to date, we have not done very well at eliciting them at the tertiary level (Hays, 2013b).5 While evidence is scant, there appears to be even less attention to these higher-order skills, abilities, and orientations in professional development and education, despite the fact that they are in high demand. Intuition suggests that adult professionals are expected to possess them; to have developed them at university or somehow organically. Lack is considered a character flaw or individual responsibility rather than an institutional or corporate duty.

Institutions of higher learning and providers of advanced professional development can and should be doing more to educate for wisdom. To accomplish this, they must themselves “wise up”. This chapter presents rationale for doing so and proffers a framework for design and delivery of a wisdom curriculum that educators, trainers, facilitators, and coaches can draw upon to enhance the efficacy of their programs.

3 See Barnett (2004), Bonnett (2009), Karp (2004), or Stacey (1992) for treatments on unknowability.4 I explore and apply systems thinking and diagnosis in a range of publications, with Hays (2010a and 2010b) particularly illustrative. 5 There are rare exceptions and it may be that more progress is being made. Positive indications that wisdom can and should be a focus for education (and general agreement that it is lacking) are found in Bassett (2005), Brown (2004), Miller (2005), Reznitskaya and Sternberg (2004), Roca (2007), Rosch (2008), and Sternberg (2001).

Why Educate for Wisdom?

Greater wisdom will lead to a better world. It will reduce the kinds of problems that are produced and perpetuated by short-sighted, inadequately understood issues, and poorly thought-through goals, decisions, solutions, and implementation strategies. While there are no guarantees, greater wisdom may actually help us solve or ameliorate some of the intractable challenges of our time. This is because wisdom strives to see the bigger picture, to understand phenomena more fully. Since wisdom is concerned with justice, equality, and flourishing, greater wisdom is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth around the globe and a better balance of health and well-being amongst the peoples of the planet. In many respects, wisdom and sustainability are the same thing. Both strive to reduce harm and continually do things that benefit the world and its inhabitants.

This may sound as if wisdom and educating for wisdom are idealistic, touted as the panacea to the world's ills. Well, even with progress, they will never be entirely perfect, total, and sustainable. But, they have to offer more than what we are currently achieving. Despite swelling numbers of university graduates, societies remain surprisingly dull, parochial, and susceptible to empty and even destructive seductions. We continue to mismanage, underutilise, and abuse each other, our resources, and the environment. We fail to act in concerted ways to fight disease, end hunger, stem widespread corruption, or stamp out genocide. The list is painfully endless. And this behaviour is not sustainable.

One of the advantages of wisdom is that it leads individuals to accept responsibility for their actions as well as demanding of them to step in where others have caused problems or failed to resolve them. To the extent that such a culture can be fostered, blaming becomes irrelevant as does expecting others to fix things. In this respect, wisdom exhibits a sense of civic, social, even global citizenship—service to the greater good, and that's for everyone not just some select few or preferred class.6

In the global world of the 21st Century, torture, murder, mutilation, rape, and such crimes against humanity are not just happening in some distant country for which we have no responsibility but on our doorstep. What happens there and our response to it have implications for the rest of the world today and into the future. Wisdom demands that we try to understand these implications and consequences and to act accordingly in the best interests of all concerned, sympathetically, compassionately, and responsibly. This is not imperialism, Big Brother, or hegemony, but the right thing.

Individually, nationally, and globally, we have to take notice. We must act. Institutions of higher learning fail if all they do is produce knowledgeable and skilled graduates that have acquired no sense of desire and capability to contribute to making the world a better place for their communities and global neighbours.

What Makes Educating for Wisdom Difficult?

As alluded to in this chapter's opening paragraph, educating for wisdom confronts numerous challenges. Two related prime impediments are a belief that wisdom cannot be taught and, even if it can be fostered, that it is not the role of institutions of higher learning to undertake such instruction. This is not to say that wisdom does not occupy a niche in certain institutions and in disciplines such as theology and philosophy. But there is far to go in achieving mainstream

6 I discuss issues of citizenship and service in a recent video (Hays, 2014b) and, with a colleague, in Hays and Clements (2012).

attraction. Two additional hurdles are worth mention. First, as there is considerable dispute in what wisdom is and what it comprises, agreeing upon a core set of material and instructional strategies will always be fraught. Second, given that many programs and curricula are already strained to capacity, there is little room or flexibility to add or change units and courses.

The breadth of wisdom and its amorphous nature do pose challenges with which many courses and disciplines must not contend. Accounting procedures are finite and straight-forward. The basics of many respective fields are more or less standard. Every Black Belt in Hapkido would be expected to have mastered the same set of skills. It is at the higher levels of training where wisdom-like themes become apparent and take on greater significance. This is where recipes, formulas, rote knowledge, basic skills training, procedural routines, textbook problems, close supervision, and reliance on expert authority and direction fall short or disappear. This is the realm of the unknown, replete with risk, perplexity, disorientation, and possibilities, but with few corresponding rules, guideposts, or clues as to what best to do.

This territory is where creativity, initiative and independent thinking, wonder, adaptation, invention, intuition, and courage are called for—all judged intangible and difficult if not impossible to teach mind you; yet so necessary. Here confidence and competence that transcend the basics of what one knows and can do are combined, reassembled, adapted to purpose, and sometimes discarded. This is the province of wisdom: potential—for extending, deepening, becoming more, evolving, renewing, transforming, and creating the entirely new. Using our martial arts metaphor, attainment of the Black Belt attests that the bearer has met basic skills requirements, like any certificate, diploma, or accreditation. But more than that it represents a threshold through which one may pass7 to pursue mastery: deeper awareness, embodied expertise, greater capacity for more sophisticated learning. In short, martial wisdom.

A wise course—martial or otherwise—will cultivate the potential of all participating, and develop skills and strategies for exploiting it. I use exploiting in the positive sense: getting the most out of resources, ourselves, and each other, but sustainably, which requires constant attention and investment (investment not in dollar terms, necessarily, but in enduring and encompassing health and well-being, represented in New Zealand by the Maori term hauora). Some of the words that embody a sustainable and beneficent culture and environment of health and well-being include respect, stewardship, service, reciprocity, community, altruism, and contribution. This is not to assert that skills and capabilities such as complex problem-solving or strategic decision-making are not essential—they most certainly are—but to remind us that they really only matter in the context of the greater good.

What is the Nature of Educating for Wisdom?

Wisdom seeks harmony, balance, authenticity, and integration,8 while appreciating that much in existence is inharmonious and out of balance. In practical terms, wisdom accepts that forces of imbalance and disharmony such as contention, provocation, and competition may provide the impetus for change, learning, and innovation.9 If everything were harmonious, there'd be no need to do anything differently. What of progress?

7 See Hays (2008b) for more on threshold concepts and their use in promoting learning.8 To be sure, wisdom seeks qualities such as understanding and insight, virtues including compassion, love, and forgiveness, but these are not part of the case made here.9 See Hays (in press) for an exposition of dynamics of chaos and confusion and their contribution to change. These themes are also undertaken in Sterling’s (2001) marvellous Schumacher Briefing.

While such forces may propel individuals and societies toward action, there is no guarantee that resultant action will be truly progressive, that is, toward betterment. Short-sighted progress does more harm than good in the long run. An example would be an innovation that unnecessarily consumes resources in its manufacture or use, pollutes the environment, or is otherwise destructive of health and well-being. A wise course provokes while channelling the tension and energies that such provocation produces toward positive outlets. It converts chaos to creativity and capability (see Hays, in press). How this works is described below. But, for now, think of wisdom and educating for wisdom less as peacekeeping and more as disrupting, destabilising, and conflicting.

The nature of educating for wisdom must be different than conventional education. At best, conventional education provides modest incremental improvements on learning. It is, as Sterling (2001) agrees, conservative and slow to change. Slight modifications to content and refinements in instruction shape what is learnt and how, but, basically, produce more of the same. In fact, there are often insidious and unwitting forces at work to keep things in higher education as they are or change only safely and predictably (Hays, 2012; 2013b). Thus, something unconventional is needed; and explains, in part, the two introductory paragraphs above to this section. Energy is needed to excite change (and promote learning); and dilemmas, ambiguities, contradictions, paradoxes, and pokings, proddings, pullings, and tenuous proppings of all sorts provide the fuel for and much of the process of wisdom learning.

Calls for unconventionality do not inevitably mean that educating for wisdom necessitates more material or even dramatically different content. Skills and knowledge designated by the professions as required must still be taught. It is how they are taught that is more the concern.

Most essential is that skills and knowledge imparted should to the fullest extent possible be integrated and combined. While it may seemingly be easier or more efficient to teach individual skills and knowledge bits, without sufficient integration and contextualising, the learning remains fragmented, likely to quickly decay, and unable to transfer, that is, to be applied in novel circumstances. Such learning is superficial or shallow, what is referred to in “eduspeak” as surface learning (Beattie et al, 1997; Hay, 2007).

What a wise course seeks is deep learning (Warburton, 2003; Weigel, 2002).10 Deep learning is not just knowledge and skills that are reproducible in controlled and predictable situations on problems that conform to typical classroom, textbook, and laboratory environments (like an examination). It is understanding of how and why the knowledge and skills are used in certain situations and not others, their limitations and contestability, alternatives available, and what to try if they don't work. An individual who has learned something deeply can take it into diverse situations, apply it to new problems, and adapt or supplant it as appropriate. This is often referred to as learning transfer or transfer of learning (Haskell, 2000; McKeough et al, 1995). Sterling (2001) equates deep learning and change with sustainability. He asserts:

At a deeper level still, when third-order learning happens we are able to see things differently. It is creative, and involves a deep awareness of alternative worldviews and ways of doing things. It is, as Einstein suggests, a shift in consciousness, and it is this transformative level of learning, both at individual and whole society levels, that radical movement toward sustainability requires (p. 15; emphasis in the original).

10 Surface learning and deep learning (along with transfer) are further explained and referenced in Hays (in press) and Hays (unpublished manuscript). As I have also emphasised, context is extremely important in deep learning and transfer. See Vos et al (2011) for considerable support for this assertion.

Of course there is more to this portability than just the requisite germane knowledge and skill. It is those capabilities and dispositions within which knowledge and skill are couched that enable knowing and effective performance in unknown circumstances. These are the targets of a wise course, and they include: will and discipline to experiment; openness to new ideas and perspectives; propensity to share, collaborate, and collectively create; dedication to exploring (and re-exploring) options and alternatives; commitment to and capability to continually learn, relearn, and unlearn; courage to take stands and courage to revise them when needed. Notably, these same passions and practices are necessary for and characterise sustainability. There would be others, perhaps many. Apologies if favourite or obvious ones have not been listed. But even these few give us substance to work with.

Toward a Curriculum for Wisdom

One of the challenges confronting educators of wisdom is that wisdom is both everything and nothing. As a subject, it embraces a wide breadth of capacities, values, and dispositions, with no little disagreement as to what it might include and possible inclusions virtually infinite. The extent to which wisdom is, then, encompassing, poses practical complications to the wisdom curriculum designer. How could one educate so widely? How thoroughly could any number of potential topics and capabilities be meaningfully addressed in a university or professional development program, much less in a particular unit or course? And, given that some agreement as to core content could be obtained, how could this be added to programs that are already full and for which core prescriptions permit little flexibility?

Such questions apply to the magnitude of wisdom—its potential “everythingness”. Before attempting to answer them, let’s return to the other side of the paradox: wisdom is nothing. How can wisdom be both everything and nothing? The nothing argument alludes to a number of assumptions concerning wisdom of relevance to education—that wisdom: is intangible; cannot be defined or measured; cannot be taught (though may be learned); dare not be trivialised (as might be the case in breaking it down into competencies or discrete topic areas; and, relatedly, that its essence or vital and vibrant nature might be lost were it to be “unpacked”). If wisdom is everything, and everything cannot be taught, then what’s the point? If wisdom is nothing, then how and why should it be added to existing curricula?

These questions and assumptions considered, it is clear that proceeding toward a curriculum for wisdom must sufficiently contend with them. It has got to, then, address the issues of:

1. Content—a defensible and generally acceptable set of knowledge, capabilities, and dispositions.

2. Size—a content set that, taken together, comprises manageable breadth and depth.

3. Fit—suitability and integratability of content to existing and evolving programs.

4. Tangibility and measurability—defining wisdom knowledge, capabilities, and dispositions such that they are more concrete and can be broken down and structured (the unpacking) as discrete competencies for which learning strategies and commensurate assessments of learning can be developed and reasonably applied.

5. Wholism—the notion that even “unpacked” and narrowed in scope, the distilled content remaining encapsulates wisdom and wise acting in the world, embodying a complex of knowledge, capabilities, and dispositions that are conceivable and believable as a whole a representing wisdom and enabling wise acting in the world.11

11 Refer to Miller (2007) or Spector and Anderson (2000) for alternative and complementary interpretations and applications of wholism (holistic learning in both cases).

Taken together, points 1-5 raised in the previous paragraph—content, size, fit, concreteness, and wholism—suggest that "a wise course", that is, educating for wisdom, is not likely to be (or be achieved through) a stand-alone, adjunct or replacement unit or course. Rather, it will be program, a framework, an integrated curriculum. Asserting this, of course, solves nothing. Presumably, curricula, at least well-designed ones, are already integrated. So the integration sought here is of another kind entirely. It is probably of the order implicit in university curricula already that specify desired graduate attributes and key generic skills. These are meant to permeate all majors and degrees and assure that all graduates possess such capabilities and dispositions as cultural competence, leadership, critical thinking, and civic-mindedness.12

However, a curriculum for wisdom must exceed the aspirations of existing integrated curricula. While laudatory, such intents are not always met. Little guidance exists as to how to translate and incorporate generic skills and graduate attributes into unit instructional strategies.13 And, to date, there are few proven and accepted means of assessing and demonstrating students have developed them appreciably by graduation time. It could be argued, for example, that requiring group projects builds teamwork skills, probably develops communication skills and useful habits, and may even cultivate leadership. Little is known, however, about what is specifically learnt and who is learning what, what mechanisms best promote the learning, how many such projects are enough and how different they must be to add value. And, come assessment, what is usually evaluated is the project itself, not the team, communication, or leadership competence. There is little regard for their contribution to the project's success or otherwise.14

Given the above, a wise course must be integrative, encompassing, sophisticated, and unconventional. Yet, it must be definable, practicable, and target a finite range of capabilities and dispositions agreed as comprising a basic common core of wisdom. Such a core, taken together and in sufficient supply, would be shown in individuals (and, presumably, teams) through greater incidence and / or depth of wisdom in pertinent, palpable ways. In other words, enable wise action and produce richer solutions more often than not at a practical and professional level. Problem-solving, decision-making, planning, implementation, and evaluation processes would be sustainable and lead to sustainability. Implicit is that these processes produce and respond to continuous learning—at each individual step along the way and collectively.

From both a research and applied practice point of view, this agreed common core must be assessable. The material and the instructional approaches taken must be shown to make a substantive difference in ways that are relevant and significant to educators, wisdom scholars, and practitioners in the field. Moreover, students, themselves, should be cognisant of what they've learned and how they've learned it. They should appreciate and be able to articulate how these capabilities and dispositions equip them for professional careers and, more generally, how they contribute to the quality of their lives. Finally, to find any level of acceptance, our nascent wise course cannot burden programs and instructors with vast new material or demand skills and tools needing much investment.

12 While each institution may have its unique set of attributes reflecting its ethos, there is general agreement on a core of ten or twelve. They can often be found on institutional websites and unit outlines / course syllabi, and have been assembled in sources such as Hays et al (2012).13 See Hays (in press).14 Aspects of developing teamwork and collaboration as part of project-based tertiary education courses are the subject of on-going research by the author and associates, with preliminary findings outlined in Kearns and Hays (2015).

One set of common core capabilities and dispositions that has been assembled is the RJRA model proposed by Hays, Clements, and Agrawal (2012) and updated in Hays (2014a). The RJRA model (standing for Reasoning, Judgement, and Reflective Action) represents an attempt to amalgamate a complex set of skills generally believed to be extremely important in industry and demanded of university graduates.15 These skills are often treated independently, seldom instructed methodically, and poorly assessed.

In addition to reasoning, judgement, and reflective action, the RJRA model includes critical thinking, complex problem-solving, creative problem-solving (CPS), decision-making, and planning, as depicted in Figure 2. LITM, adjoining Reflective Action, is described as Learning in the Moment. While providing a potentially-useful framework, the work by Hays and associates has not yet produced a specific course of instruction or assessment regime. These are the subjects on on-going research, with particular attention being given to development of critical thinking in one project and, in another, to the linkages to sustainable learning and education.

CriticalThinking

DecisionMaking

Reasoning

Judgement

ReflectiveAction

LITM

Global Context

Situational Context

Perspective

ComplexProblemSolving

CPS

Planning

As a starting point, RJRA offers a set of topics and associated skills and tools that might comprise a possible wisdom curriculum. To meet the criteria outlined previously, a wisdom curriculum would embrace, permeate, and integrate an entire major or program. This is a daunting and, at least initially, an unlikely task. There would be few programs and program administrators flexible, equipped, and courageous (or foolhardy) enough to undertake such an ambitious and risky challenge. It would also be next to impossible to determine which specific aspects of the curriculum actually produced wisdom behaviour in its graduates. For these reasons, a single unit (course) is proposed. This might be a one or two semester offering. Many programs could accommodate one more elective, especially if it built knowledge and skills needed in other units or that they have trouble developing or demonstrating. And, non-tertiary versions are also possible, for professional development practitioners and programs capable of instructing the complete set.

15 See Hays (in press) for an elaborated account. Refer, also, to Hays (2012), Hays (2013b), and Hays (unpublished manuscript) for critiques of Higher Education and recommendations on how to enrich learning and better prepare graduates for the complexity and challenges of the 21st Century.

Figure 2. The RJRA Model, showing the elements comprising a proposed wisdom curriculum (the "wise course"), and their relationships.

In design, the wise course is similar to a survey course that covers a range of topics, such as an HR unit might cover recruitment, benefits, performance management and appraisal, arbitration, succession planning, termination, and so on. The topics are rather like individual puzzle pieces. Unlike most survey courses, however, a wise course links the topics together, and leads the learner to a deep understanding of the pieces and how they fit together. Something more like a capstone unit. Assessment would require learners to demonstrate facility in assembling and applying the topics and skills appropriately and explicatively to create a meaningful whole [picture puzzle] in unique and creative ways—unprescribed, but meeting agreed-upon criteria indicative of wisdom. This is important as learners should appreciate that there is no textbook solution, no one right answer to many real-world problems.

Such assessment would require evidence that the individual has reasoned through a complex and vexing problem posing one or more dilemmas, critically examined the data available and interrogated the assumptions, beliefs, biases, values, and attitudes that influence understanding of the problem and possible solutions. The learner would have to articulate and defend a decision or conclusion, outline how that would be put into affect, and what the risks, likely consequences, implications, and repercussions might be and how they could be best mediated.

Further, the learner would have to demonstrate good judgement in deliberating on solution and solution implementation strategy, reflecting understanding and appreciation for local and global context, including stakeholders involved, environmental impacts, constraints, and sustainability, and show a cross-disciplinary approach. Finally, evidence of Reflective Action must be present in the problem-solving, decision-making, and planning process. This may be easier and more telling in a real project, as conscious Learning in the Moment transpires and feeds back into the process. In more of a test situation, the learner would be expected to make his or her thinking and feelings explicit, to explain, describe, and elaborate on intuitive moments, insights, reactions, aversions, seductions, uncertainties, and the like, and how they influenced the process and its results. The latter is indicative of mindfulness and meta-cognition, thought to be essential aspects of self-directed learning and continuous improvement (see Hays, in press).

The final product would be judged against a set of criteria, developed by a panel of experts, that collectively characterise wisdom and permit distinguishing levels or gradations and qualifying domains or dimensions of wisdom.16,17 Using the RJRA model as a framework, for instance, suggests that each domain (reasoning, critical thinking, planning, and the others) could provide an individual section of an assessment inventory or battery. Such an assessment could reveal respective strengths as well as overall achievement, and could be used formatively as well as summatively.18 Hypothetically, an individual might demonstrate critical thinking facility though be less proficient in complex problem-solving. Likewise, an individual might exhibit heightened intuitive or reflective thinking but struggle to articulate the process or method leading to decision or plan or be unable to defend it with compelling data or reasoning. Such is likely to be required in professional life.

16 Identifying and convening a panel of experts and coming to agreement on indicators of wisdom of relevance to RJRA are subjects of a research program beginning at time of writing. This on-going work is also likely to lead to revision of (or even discarding) the RJRA model as a basis for educating for wisdom.17 It should be clear that wisdom as conceived in this chapter is a practical, applied wisdom, or Phronesis. There are all kinds of wisdom, spiritual, perennial, folk, and so on, but here we are most concerned with wisdom as needed and applied in management, leadership, and the professions.18 Useful references for formative and summative assessment of general relevance to themes in this chapter include: Harlan and James (1997), William and Black (1996), and Yorke (2003).

A Wise Course and Sustainability

There is a direct relationship between wisdom and sustainability, and a wise course is a sustainable one. I do not mean to imply that a wise course is one with staying power—that statically or stubbornly persists despite changing context and environment. It is one that continues to responsively and responsibly evolve and adapt to contend with changing demands, and, in fact, inspires and enables a continuing challenging of the way things are and a reimagining of how things might be internally and externally. In this sense, a wise course is a creative one… creative not merely to be novel and different—though that could be helpful—but to always entertain impermanence and mutability, that things don’t have to be the way they are and can usually be bettered. But, that betterment is not just improvement or change because it’s possible or popular, but within the context of its contribution to the greater good. Such a contribution comes at little cost to the planet and its inhabitants and causes no harm. It intentionally produces health, well-being, and flourishing, rather than progress or profit at any cost.

A course in wisdom is a wise course, and thus a sustainable one, if it embodies and produces graduates who demonstrate certain values and exhibit behaviours relevant to practical wisdom and living life well in a world worth living in19. These include a strong commitment to courageously and open-mindedly challenge and question, propose solutions, and act on results of inquiry and consultation in ways that best serve the greater good around such themes as:

1. How can we remain current and relevant?

2. How can we best serve our stakeholders and extend our reach?

3. Of all the concerns and issues confronting us today, which are the most important to tackle? (these would be the ones that would reduce harm the most and provide the greatest return in terms of health and well-being now (widely) and in the long-run?

4. What are we doing right now that is unnecessarily wasteful or destructive, and how can we do it more sustainably?

5. How can we design and organise ourselves such that we reduce our dependence on external provision of resources and capitalise on our own inherent potential and capabilities?

6. How can we “learn forward”, that is, prepare for challenges and opportunities over the horizon?20

7. How can we move forward, reinventing ourselves, whilst taking the best of what we are and shedding the attitudes, beliefs, biases, values, motives, assumptions, perspectives, and behaviours that might impede us now or in the future (or as I have said elsewhere, how can we get over ourselves?)?

Bottom line is that a wise course is one that asks (and sustainably answers and promotes this discipline in graduates), What must we learn, relearn, and unlearn to remain a viable and positive contributor in a complex, chaotic, and confusing world?

Concluding Remarks

19 See Csikszentmihalyi and Csikszentmihalyi (2006) or Ryan, Huta, and Deci (2008).20 See Hays (in press).

The world needs wisdom, at least as much now as in any time in the past, and quite likely more so. Our planet is quickly overcrowding, becoming increasingly polluted, and we are insatiably devouring its resources, not to mention rampant crime, conflict, and human suffering. While there may be a shortage of wisdom displayed in the world, there is great potential amongst human beings to develop and demonstrate wisdom. This is, as I see it, one of the greatest challenges for education, and particularly so for institutions of higher learning. We have made amazing advances in science, technology, and medicine. We teach and train very proficiently. Each year more knowledgeable students graduate and enter professional life. But many lack wisdom—the will, understanding, and capability to do the right thing for the greater good all things considered.

This is not their fault or shortcoming. This is a failure of the education systems that produce them... an unnecessary failure, oversight, benign neglect, the dynamics of which were described in Hays (2013b) and, with greater detail, in Hays (2012).

No doubt, many individuals will develop wisdom with the passing of time, seasoning, and accumulation of experience. And some seem to find their way successfully in the world with no particular additional training in wisdom. These individuals, endowed with natural ingenuity, drive, curiosity, or creativity, become our leaders and leading lights. The clever succeed; the wise contribute to the greater good. The majority of us, however, have the potential for more; but it remains sealed inside of us. This is unfortunate. The world needs our wisdom, and we are likely to be more fulfilled when we can express it; that is, in some way make the world a better place.

From an educational point of view, there is no reason why we can't do more to bring out and capitalise upon wisdom. As institutions of higher learning we are obligated to do more for our students, our communities, and the global greater good. We can do this by acting more wisely ourselves. One way of acting more wisely is in the choice of what and how we teach. A wise course, built around the RJRA model, seems to offer a productive way forward. It builds professional skills crucial in the complex challenging world of the 21st Century. Significantly, it frames and seeks to apply these skills with continuous reference to global and local context, ethical considerations, and sustainability concerns.

As a final thought, ponder the merits of having to always articulate how a given proposal might cost or contribute to the greater good—and to do this honestly and as thoroughly as possible. This is the kind of question asked in a wise course, and the kind of question its graduates will ask throughout their lifetimes.

References

Baltes, P., and Staudinger, U. (2000). Wisdom: a metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 122-136.

Barnett, R. (2004). Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research & Development, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 247-260.

Bassett, C. (2005). Wisdom in three acts: using transformative learning to teach for wisdom. The Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Transformative Learning. East Lansing: Michigan State University and Grand Rapids Community College.

Bierly, P., Kessler, E., and Christensen, E. (2000). Organizational learning, knowledge and wisdom. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 595-618.

Bonnett, M. (2000). Systemic wisdom, the ‘selving’ of nature, and knowledge transformation: education for the greater whole. Studies in Philosophy and Education, Vol. 28, pp. 39-49.

Brown, S. (2004). Learning across the campus: how college facilitates the development of wisdom. Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 134-148.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., and Csikszentmihalyi, I.S. (2006). A Life Worth Living: Contributions to Positive Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Harlan, W., and James, M. (1997). Assessment and learning: differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 365-379.

Haskell, R. (2000). Transfer of Learning: Cognition, Instruction, and Reasoning. Academic Press.

Hay, D. (2007). Using concept maps to measure deep, surface and non-learning outcomes. Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 39-57.

Hays, J. (2008a). Dynamics of organisational wisdom. The Business Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 2, Is. 4, pp. 77-122.

Hays, J. (2008b). Threshold and transformation. European Journal of Management, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 24-46.

Hays, J. (2010a). The ecology of wisdom. Management & Marketing journal. Vol. 5. No. 1, pp. 71-92.

Hays, J. (2010b). Mapping the wisdom ecosystem. Management & Marketing journal. Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 19-66.

Hays, J. (2012). Wicked problem: educating for complexity and wisdom. Paper presented at the Wise Management in Organisational Complexity Conference, 23-24 May 2012, Shanghai, China.

Hays, J. (2013a). Transformation and transcendence for wisdom: the emergence and sustainment of wise leaders and organisations (Ch. 7; pp. 133-154). In Küpers, W. and D. Pauleen (Eds.), Handbook of Practical Wisdom: Leadership, Organization and Integral Business Practice. Gower.

Hays, J. (2013b). Wicked problem: educating for complexity and wisdom (Ch. 6; pp. 134-150). In Thompson, M., and D. Bevan (Eds.), Wise Management in Organisational Complexity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hays, J. (2014a). Reasoning, judgement, and reflective action: a model for curriculum innovation and proposed collaborative research in the Pacific region. Paper presented at the Unitec Pacific Research Symposium, Auckland, New Zealand, 26 November.

Hays, J. (2014b). Video: Citizenship and Professionalism as Higher Education Outcomes. Sydney: Charles Sturt University. Accessible at: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=107245923&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profile_pic.

Hays, J. (in press). Chaos to Capability: Educating Professionals for the 21st Century. Auckland: Unitec.

Hays, J. (unpublished manuscript). Toward a theory and pedagogy of applied practice.

Hays, J., and Clements, M. (2012). Service learning and citizenship: focus for university-community collaboration. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance (AUCEA; now Engagement Australia), Next Steps: Community Engaged Learning, Brisbane, Australia, 9-11 July, 2012.

Hays, J., Clements, M., and Agrawal, A. (2012). Reasoning, judgement, and reflective action for a sustainable future: a curriculum innovation and cross-cultural study of post-graduate students in Australia and Malaysia. Paper prepared for the annual ELLTA conference (Exploring Leadership and Learning in Asia), Asian Perspectives on Transforming Societies through Creativity, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Langkawi, Malaysia, Dec 11-13.

Jones, D., and Culliney, J. (1998). Confucian order at the edge of chaos: the science of complexity and ancient wisdom. Zygon, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 395-404.

Karp, T. (2004). Learning the steps of the dance of change: improving change capabilities by integrating future studies with positive organisational scholarship. Foresight, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp. 349-355.

Kearns, N., and Hays, J. (2015). Student teams: promises, problems and paradoxes. Paper presented at the National Tertiary Learning and Teaching Conference 2015, Te Tipuranga—Growing Capability. Bay of Plenty, New Zealand, Sep 30 – 2 Oct, 2015.

Kitchener, K., and Brenner, H. (1990). Wisdom and reflective judgment: knowing in the face of uncertainty. In Sternberg, R. (Ed.), Wisdom: Its Nature, Origins, and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Korac-Kakabadse, N., Korac-Kakabadse, A., and Kouzmin, A. (2004). Leadership renewal: towards the philosophy of wisdom. International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol, 67, pp. 207-227.

Lynch, R. (1999). Seeking practical wisdom. Business and Economic History, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 123-135.

McKenna, B., and Rooney, D., and Boal, K. (2009). Wisdom principles as a meta-theoretical basis for evaluating leadership. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 177-190.

McKeough, A., Lupart, J., and Marini, A. (Eds.). (1995). Teaching for Transfer: Fostering Generalization in Learning. Milwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Miller, J. (2005). Educating for Wisdom and Compassion: Creating Conditions for Timeless Learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

Miller, J. (2007). The Holistic Curriculum, 2nd Ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Nonaka, I., and Toyama, R. (2007). Strategic management as distributed practical wisdom (phronesis). Industrial and Cultural Change, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 371-394.

Reznitskaya, A., and Sternberg, R. (2004). Teaching students to make wise judgments: the teaching for wisdom program. In Positive Psychology in Practice (Ch. 11), details unavailable, downloaded at: http://www.shkodraonline.com/e107_files/public/1264164501_514_FT216478_positive_psychology_in_practice.pdf#page=205

Roca, E. (2007). Introducing practical wisdom in business schools. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 82, pp. 607-620.

Rosch, E. (2008). Beginner’s mind: paths to the wisdom that is not learned. In Ferrari, M., and G. Potworoski (Eds.), Teaching for Wisdom: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Fostering Wisdom. Dordrecht: Springer.

Rowley, J. (2006). What do we need to know about wisdom? Management Decision, Vol. 44, No. 9, pp. 1246-1257.

Ryan, R., Huta, V., and Deci, E. (2008). Living well: a self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 139-170.

Smith, C. (2007). Working from the inside out: management and leadership through the lens of the perennial wisdom tradition. Journal of Management Development, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 475-483.

Spector, J., and Anderson, T. (Eds.). (2000). Integrated and Holistic Perspectives on Learning, Instruction and Technology. Dordrecht: Springer.

Stacey, R. (1992). Managing for the Unknowable: Strategic Borders between Order and Chaos in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sterling, S. (2001). Sustainable Education: Re-visioning Learning and Change. Schumacher Briefing No. 6. Cambridge: Green Books.

Sternberg, R. (1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of General Psychology, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 347-365.

Sternberg, R. (2001). Why schools should teach for wisdom: the balance theory of wisdom in educational settings. Educational Psychologist, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 227-245.

Vos, N., van der Meijden, H., and Denessen, E. (2011). Effects of constructing versus playing an educational game on student motivation and deep learning strategy use. Computers & Education, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 127-137.

Warburton, K. (2003). Deep learning for sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 44-56.

Weigel, V. (2002). Deep Learning for a Digital Age: Technology's Untapped Potential to Enrich Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

William, D., and Black, P. (1996). Meanings and consequences: a basic for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment? British Educational and Research Journal, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 537-548.

Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: movements toward theory and the enrichment of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, Vol. 45, pp. 477-501.