/w=3840,quality=90,fit=scale-down)
/w=3840,quality=90,fit=scale-down)
Photo story: I took this photo in Oct 2024 at the Rainbow Church, Cijin Island, Kaoshiung. It is an art installation comprising of three arches, one of which resembles a Japanese torii gate. I chose this image for its clear contrast between the turbulent open sea in the background and the calm man-made pond in the foreground. It reminds me of the tide pool: a sheltered space right next to the open sea.
An Accidental Beginning
My path to create The Tide Pool was not a grand, premeditated quest to revolutionise education.
It began by accident in 2017, after I completed my PhD and was looking for my next adventure. I received an invitation to teach as an adjunct faculty at the Singapore Management University (SMU) Business School, and I accepted.
One of the modules I began teaching was "The Design of Business", a Capstone module for all final-year business students. In this course, students are required to solve a real business problem for a curated client. The nature of these projects typically involves uncovering new business lines or market segments. Students are required to undertake market research for the first six weeks, then validate their ideas with prospects in the subsequent six weeks, finally presenting their solution by the thirteenth week.
When I first started, my only aim was to survive; I had little experience teaching an undergraduate credit-bearing class. Any aspirations or philosophies I had articulated in Chapter 1 were far from my mind.
I quickly learned why many of my fellow instructors found this course challenging. It is because:
- Exposure to a real-world client: This was not the norm for most classes, leading to many uncertainties around client interaction and expectation management.
- Unfamiliarity with market validation: Students struggled with the uncertainties of testing their solutions in the market. This often led to student dissatisfaction and widely varying quality in their final outputs.
Structuring the Learning Experience
Drawing on my background in management consulting and project management, I approached these uncertainties in the only way I knew: being very structured. I meticulously scaffolded the learning process by introducing frameworks and activities which demonstrated their application. Students would then apply these principles to the client's problem using the same steps and templates. I reviewed their work and gave regular feedback. Concurrently, I actively managed the clientβs expectations about the project outcomes and interactions with the students.
This structured approach initially served everyone well. For the students, the frameworks and templates acted as guardrails, guiding them towards the final deliverables. Clients appreciated the clear schedule for when and how they would be involved, making it easier to plan their availability. This structure also gave students the space to work independently while still drawing upon the collective wisdom of their peers and me.
Recognising the Real Gap
However, the course was still difficult for many students, especially for those without much real-world working experience. Firstly, this project demanded that they identify opportunities that even seasoned business professionals might overlook. It also required them to move beyond PowerPoint presentations and rigorously test their ideas with me, the client, and prospective customers.
Secondly, the clients wanted more depth from the deliverables. While they were generally happy with how polished the work looked, many clients said the deliverables could not be implemented. Some said that students did not consider what their business could realistically implement. Others felt the deliverables were not strategic. In essence, it was doing the work well but missing the fundamental problem it was meant to solve.
Overall, the structure I put in place was undoubtedly helpful. Yet something crucial was still missing. Students could complete the project but still missed its core purpose. The thinking lacked depth because they solved the problem as given instead of questioning the real issue. They diligently followed the process, but did not know when or how to challenge it. I realised this was the real gap I had to address.
It was not enough to build a structured environment that mirrored the real world. I had to create a space where students learned to think for themselves, navigate ambiguity, and push through tension.
I call this structure the ππ’ππ ππ¨π¨π₯ ππππ‘π¨πβ’. It is a metaphor for shaping the learning environment to let the real world in without letting students drown.
Previous Chapter: Confronting the Thinking Gap Next Chapter: The βThink Againβ Philosophy