The Humility Factor in the Castlereagh Statement

I read the six principles presented in the Castlereagh Statement, I see an attempt to define this moment, culturally and pedagogically, for keeping the 'human in the loop'. To do this, it is not hard to notice that across the board, the principles aim to 'redefine' and 'reconceptualise' to transform the status quo.  

This provokes me into thinking about how much of my teaching life has assumed the value of my role as a 'human' teacher has been about striving to be 'student-centred'.

Arguably, evident from the time of the Enlightenment, e.g. from the writings of Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi in the early 1800s, then further substantiated in the late-19th and early-20th century by John Dewey, I believe we've been on a quest in Australian education to transform our students from passive listeners into active investigators. 

Closer in time, mid-1990s figures like Jean Piaget (the theory of Cognitive Constructivism) and Lev Vygotsky (Zone of Proximal Development) have been pivotal in allowing me to think about the idea of 'scaffolding'.

What of teacher-wellbeing?

Now, in the digital age, concepts of Personalised Learning and Differentiated Instruction emphasise that teachers must adapt content and processes to suit individual student readiness. However, the lessons of teaching and learning during the COVID pandemic, the number of teachers walking away from the profession and, most recently, striking teachers in 2022, 2023 and 2026 also become implicated in how we come to realise AI in Education.

Consequently, the Castlereagh Statements' second principle of  Institutional and Individual Humility provokes me into thinking about how technological solutions relate to alleviating the teacher's stress levels. Furthermore, how stressed teachers' understanding terms and concepts can become conflated with unintended meanings.

I experienced this first hand as a curriculum officer based in a district office, when I saw how the phrase 'learning styles' was conflated with 'differentiated instruction'. This was despite how cognitive scientists, such as Paul Howard-Jones widely debunked "Learning Styles" from 2014 onwards through his systematic review published in Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

Conversely, we can draw on Jay McTighe's and Carol Ann Tomlinson's collaboration in Integrating Differentiated Instruction & Understanding by Design: Connecting Content and Kids (2006). Through their praxis approach to educational theory we can view how "Big Ideas" (the content) remain rigorous and instructive, even while the pathways to them meet the diverse needs of every student .

What's so special about Principle 2?

I see the second principle as vitally important to redressing the current situation. Its marshalling of 'Institutional and individual humility' demonstrates how a ‘unified national vision’ starts in the the learning of new things. 

Furthermore, if we add a historical perspective 'humility' gains even more depth and breadth from the different cultural scenarios that unfold it etymological evolution.  

Imagine, for instance, the elements of the Principle 2 outlined here.

Now, place it alongside the following chart. Yes, it is only a 'wikipedia-type' exploration of the term, but, nonetheless, it shows the diversity of its cultural origins.

Then there's the  "Humility Paradox" to consider. As many religious texts note, the moment you realise you are humble, you have likely lost it. This makes it the only virtue that "disappears" the moment it is claimed. This is what is illustrated, for instance, in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector when the Pharisee's prayer declares "God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector."

What this should tell us is why it is not always obvious to behave with humility when trying to form an essential belief or complete a challenging quest for meaning. 

Why does this matter?

As I read it, the idea of calling "for a commitment to institutional collaborative innovation and humility" seals the relationship between AI in Education with human cognition.

For instance, in the past fifteen years, cognitive scientists  Drs Barbara Oakley and Terry Sejnowski, have popularised ‘learning to learn’ in their Coursera MOOC course for teaching secondary and undergraduate students.

Through applying theories of Embodied Cognition and Conceptual Metaphor, they emphasise that learning and problem-solving are an oscillating process between the focused and diffuse modes of thinking. 

• Focused mode is for doing: calculating, writing, or memorising. It provides the "raw data" for the brain to work with.
• Diffuse mode is for understanding: synthesising information and overcoming "Einstellung"—a cognitive bias where you get stuck on a wrong approach because you are focusing too hard on it.

According to Oakley and Sejnowski, the human brain cannot stay in one mode forever. Thus, how do Large Language Models mirror the 'focused' and 'diffuse' modes of our human learning and problem solving capacities? 

How will the organisers of Castlereagh Statement use new learnings and knowledge from cognitive science to avoid "Einstellung" so that dynamic human-machine interactions arise?  What will this look like in teaching and learning as 'humility' shapes vital interactive curriculum spaces for "building a world worth living in"?