Rethinking General Abilities： 4 Types of Generality and the Minerva Model

Minerva

@kawahiii: @blu3mo This is interesting to read about general abilities. Why don’t you give it a try? I think the key is how to solve the problem of transfer. https://t.co/BIpLp1I1Qa

In this article, I first classified generality into four types: “generality that does not depend on specific fields,” “generality that disregards specific fields,” “generality rooted in specific fields,” and “meta-field generality.” Among these, “generality that disregards specific fields” is apparent generality and cannot be an educational goal.

• Interesting criticism of “apparent generality”
• It feels like the wrong generalization of skills (blu3mo)

Of the remaining three, “generality that does not depend on specific fields” and “generality rooted in specific fields” are in contrasting positions. The former assumes the existence of general abilities and aims to cultivate them by listing and standardizing them, while the latter considers abilities to be fundamentally specific to a particular field and believes that they can acquire generality by expanding the context of their application.

• “Generality rooted in specific fields” seems to expand the range of “fields” and broaden the scope of application, calling it “generality”
  • This is quite similar to what is mentioned in Learning X from Universal Models (blu3mo)
  • By expanding the range of “fields” that the “model” can represent, the scope of application is broadened
• When the range of “fields” rooted in “generality rooted in specific fields” is expanded,
  • If it goes well: Does it become “generality that does not depend on specific fields”?
  • If you make a wrong generalization: Does it become “generality that disregards specific fields”? (blu3mo)
• “Generality that does not depend on specific fields”
  • Is this what they call ”competency“?

The fourth type, “meta-field generality,” is a perspective obtained based on “generality rooted in specific fields.”

• “Meta-field generality” is very much like Theory of Knowledge (blu3mo)

  • Generality obtained by considering and integrating the characteristics of knowledge and abilities specific to each field

  • “Characteristics of knowledge and abilities specific to each field” = AOK, WOK
  • “Considering and integrating them” = TOK Essay / TOK Presentation
  • Oh, it’s mentioned (blu3mo)

    • A typical example of ④ is the “Theory of Knowledge (TOK)” of the International Baccalaureate (IB) (International Baccalaureate Organization, 2014).

• 

Next, I focused on “generality that does not depend on specific fields,” which is considered to be the strongest argument for the generality of abilities, and examined the goals, curriculum, and evaluation of Minerva University as a typical example.

• It would be really interesting to take classes at Minerva while knowing the theoretical background of the education I am receiving (blu3mo)(blu3mo)(blu3mo)

Minerva’s approach is a challenge to the argument that denies the generality of abilities based on the difficulty of transfer of learning. It is noteworthy for its approach to systematizing the curriculum in a different way from the curriculum map, but it is difficult to directly adopt it in Japanese universities.