With these issues in mind, Dan has a unique way of tying exams into the learning process. After attending a workshop run by the Nobel Prize winner Ca… - David Franklin

So Trump was 29% likely to win. What does 29% mean?” he asks. This is an odd question for many: they’re doing a Master’s degree at Harvard, and they’re being asked what a percentage means. The question is aiming at the gut reaction of the brain to the number. Inevitably, students think it might be a trick question. Dan waits a while, and when no-one raises their hands, he breaks away from the example to tell a story: “You know, when I first started teaching, I was terrified of silence. I thought, ‘oh my god, I’ve got to do something, they’re not saying anything’.” The class laughs: he has eased the tension created by the silence. “The more I taught, the more I realised that silences are important in a class – they give time for people to think. These days, I’m not afraid of silence at all.” After a few seconds, a woman puts up her hand. “Well, obviously, I knew that it meant there was some chance that he would win. But it was still a shock that the 29% happened.

Dan’s use of two-stage exams kills two birds with one stone. Firstly, he maximises learning by ensuring that the exam itself is a learning experience. Second, in doing so, he makes clear that the grade is less important than the learning. Two-stage exams have not yet ‘taken off’ around the world, and grades remain the key outcome of most exams for most students. Dan, though, has taken advantage of his position in a graduate university environment to push the idea forward.

But few of us really stop to ask ourselves what new information might change our minds, especially on questions of politics and identity. We fall into the trap of confirmation bias, in which rather than updating our prior beliefs, we mould new information into a form that will confirm them.