Ever think about Leonardo da Vinci who is described on Wikipedia as a scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, painter, sculptor, architect, musician, and writer? Infinitely curious, highly inventive, and diversely talented … wouldn’t we aspire to be like him? Or to have the learners with whom we interact be like him?

Michael J. Gelb has written an interesting book about How to think like Leonardo da Vinci. Subtitled Seven Steps to Genius Every day, the book lists 7 critical principles that need to be followed for success (discussing each of these in relation to da Vinci’s work and life):

  1. Curiosita: An insatiably curious approach to life.
  2. Dimonstratzione: A commitment to test knowledge through experience.
  3. Sensazione: The continual refinement of the senses, especially sight, as the means to clarify experience.
  4. Sfumato: A willingness to embrace ambiguity, paradox, and uncertainty.
  5. Arte/Scienza: The development of the balance between science and art, logic and imagination (“whole-brain thinking”).
  6. Corporalita: The cultivation of ambidexterity, fitness, and poise.
  7. Connessione: A recognition and appreciation for the connectedness of all things and phenomena; “systems thinking.”

Kris, at Wandering Ink, has done a brilliant post entitled How to Prevent Another Leonardo da Vinci. Although some of what is described is more relevant to primary and secondary education environments, it takes just a little creativity (and not a lot of genius) to envision the applicability of the post to higher education environments.

For instance … think about Connessione in educating healthcare professions’ students.

What is it? A recognition and appreciation for the connectedness of all things and phenomena. “Systems thinking.”

How do we “murder” it? By teaching facts and concepts in specific classes. By having classes and the content within them be independent of each other. By not helping students see the interconnectedness of what they are learning. By not providing the big picture.

Can you give an example? As faculty, it seems we have repeated struggles with presenting content in an integrated fashion. We often have separate courses in such content as diversity, social issues, informatics, pharmacology, anatomy/physiology, and interviewing. Then we have courses in pediatric care, care of the adult, and gerontology. Sure, students are expected to take content they learn in the general courses and apply it in their other courses. But, as faculty, we know that the extent to which this is a requirement or whether it is valued or “demanded” is often dependent on who’s teaching the course. For better or worse, there is a great deal of latitude in what individual faculty within courses can opt to include.

Why don’t we focus on systems thinking in our health professions’ courses? Because it is time-consuming and challenging to make the connections (for ourselves and learners) that are required in this type of thinking. Students (and faculty) often prefer a smaller and more specific set of course outcomes. When attending to the interconnectedness of content, it is a challenge to ensure that learners are aware of all the various aspects to be included. What about grading learners’ output?

Earlier I did a posting on the need for increased interprofessional education. The connectedness of health professions’ education is a topic of continuing discussion. Question: How many pharmacology courses does a health science campus need? Answer: At least one for each health professions’ program on campus. Why, oh why, can’t we get together in something that is a “no brainer” to educate health professions’ students together? There’s always someone’s schedule that doesn’t permit one group of students to be with another group of students. Never enough classroom space to bring all pharmacy, nursing, and medicine students together for a single class.

Why don’t we think outside of our disciplinary boxes? Let’s bring small groups of interprofessional students together. Not all nursing students need to have pharmacy class on Monday between 2 and 4. What about 1/3 of the nursing students having pharmacy class with 1/3 of the medicine and 1/3 of the pharmacy students? The other 2 groups of 1/3 of each class can have their joint classes at a different time. We need to think more flexibly in what we do.

Regretably, it often seems easier to argue for the status quo than to think outside of the box and try innovative programs. Or, sometimes people will initiate changes, but not really support those changes with the right people or the release time that would be needed to fully integrate the innovation.

But, back to How to Prevent Another Leonardo da Vinci.

We really don’t want to do that. I can’t imagine that anyone purposefully is trying to quelch enthusiasm, creativity, innovation, and genius. But we all know that sometimes it happens. What genius healthcare provider are we missing because of how we teach and how we grade learners’ products? Have a read of Kris’ Wandering Ink post and ponder how this applies to the teaching that you do!