Setting up egalitarian learning

When I look back at all my peak experiences as a teacher or trainer, in every instance I was a learner. I already knew the subject matter I was helping others understand. But I didn't know which way I could design the instructional experiences that would work the best. I didn't know how well any particular approach would function until I tried it. I also didn't know what other approaches would come to mind after I tried out the alternatives I had already generated.

I also wondered about the individuals learning from me. I saw them as users of what I was offering that would face challenges applying the ideas/methods in different contexts. I didn't know how familiar they were with related topics or how prepared they felt to implement what we were exploring together.

I shared all this up front at the beginning of those courses. I explained how much I had to learn and what I didn't know yet. I set myself up as an exemplar of "life long learning". I showed them how it's possible to love learning and live one's own questions passionately. I made it more accessible to find one's intrinsic motivation for learning that eludes most students amidst required courses and objective grading pressures.

In my view, this created some virtuous cycles. The more they learned from me, the more I would learn from them. The more confident and powerful they acted, the more I would do the same. As with any virtuous cycle, it was energizing to feed off each others' successes and realizations.

I also see this as leveling the playing field or looking eye to eye while seated at a table. I reduced the power distance between us and got off my high horse. The removal of the usual superiority/ inferiority dynamics nurtured lots more take away value and mutual respect for all of us.  I set up egalitarian learning where each of us could make valuable mistakes and learn from each others' example. We were all in the same boat sharing our experiences of life long learning. Our love of learning could be felt in the room.

Designing P2P learning

I'm in the midst of designing an online course using principles of peer-2-peer learning. Rather than set myself up in the usual role as instructor, the course is getting designed for the students to be the teachers. Obviously they cannot convey expertise, but they can benefit from the pattern for "the best way to learn something is to teach it". They will also benefit from playing both roles of the one helping and the one getting helped. This departure from the role fixity of formal instruction sets the learners up to help themselves more effectively as they pursue a path of further expertise beyond the course.

Rather than give students information, it's essential to provide tools to be used by them from the start. This sets up some initial hands on learning to become familiar with the use. It also generates some authentic interest in getting better informed once the context of use seems real. This approach complies with the pattern of "use it or lose it" by insisting that praxis precedes becoming better informed.

It's essential that each participant cultivate a unique contribution which leads to a distinguished reputation. Most academicians assume they only way to differentiate collaborative peers is by their expertise. They set up team projects in the classes without giving each student a unique role, resource to contribute or viewpoint to apply to the team group dynamics. This occurs because all the students uniformly lack academic expertise. This all-too-common approach to teamwork gives p2p approaches a bad name.

Peer contributions can be individualized by providing different resources to apply to common situations or the same resource to apply to differentiated use cases. The use of these resources gets greatly enhanced by peers making requests for help. A dialogue emerges about the context of the request which makes the resources seem increasingly useful, relevant and worthy of further practice. A meta level of thinking emerges to resolve questions of applicability, timing, balance with other issues, far beyond the conventional concerns with right answers and grades.

As peers make requests for help, the intrinsic rewards for formulating responses emerges. Requests set up the possibility of the responder receiving verbalized appreciation, useful feedback and deeper insights into how to be more helpful. None of that gets tainted by extrinsic rewards of grades or formal evaluations by the instructor. The hands on experience of deal with peer requests some self-generated criteria for what makes a better request and a more helpful response.  There's no handout of evaluation rubrics to ensure consistency of evaluations. It's assumed the internal criteria will prove to be more enduring and applicable by each peer.

When these design principles get applied, the instructor can monitor all the activity, make occasional processes observations and learn from the interactions how to improve the design for p2p learning. The peers learn at more levels and in more useful ways to face future challenges.

Use it or lose it

One of my favorite principles of effective instructional design has always been "use it or lose it". When we fail to use something we presume we have already learned, it's not there when we need it later. We forgot it because it seemed useless at the time we were exposed to it. Much like a library that pitches the books that no one has checked out for a decade, our long term memory acts as if cognitive housekeeping is routinely required.

Use if or lose it also applies to cramming for tests. The immediate use of the new knowledge involves coming up with it under test anxiety in order to get a good grade with it. Our minds can handle those short term uses on the basis of usefulness, just like they approach long term retention. However, that cramming use is obviously temporary and the knowledge is soon forgotten. College students agonize when it gets announced the the final exam will cover the entire semester, not just the second half. They've just become aware that all that "useless" stuff from 6 weeks ago is going to be useful for another crucial hour during the final week of class.

Learning by doing, praxis or social interaction is a different story. The "context of use" is immediate. The value in knowing it is evident and convincing. When that practiced use gets reapplied in another situation, retention is effortless and enduring. There's no cramming required. Our memories work superbly. We've learned the way that works for our minds, our conduct and our reputation.

This principle implies that instructional design ought to create "contexts of use" rather than contexts of informative content delivery, required reading or contrived memorization. It's much more difficult to create situations where the information gets used when starting from a bunch of expertise to deliver. It's much easier when starting with problems to solve, crises to alleviate or conflicts to resolve. Then the content will either be presented as tools or deleted because it's not applicable to those use cases. Then use it or lose it applies to editing the content of an instructional design, not just the retention strategy of the participants.

Precluding motivation problems

Over the weekend, I attended a dessert party hosted by my sister and brother-in-law. I spent most of the evening talking with a fascinating, high school science teacher from a nearby charter school. That conversation got me immersed in the world of motivation and behavior problems that persist in spite of efforts to engage the students, make the material interesting and mentor individuals starved for attention. I mentioned that I view motivation problems as a symptom of content delivery systems, not as an isolated or personality problem. I realized my own model for giving college dropouts a second chance did not address this issue adequately. The next day I came up with a framework to ensure enough robustness and complexity to preclude motivation problems. Here's a look at the model that can apply to every system for serving learners.

Sometimes we're open minded and sometimes we're closed minded. This can be a good thing. Likewise, we alternate between being rational and irrational which can offer us tremendous benefits also. However, when we fail to cover all four ways of functioning, we make problems for ourselves that appear to have no solution or any permanent fix. Weak systems inherently favor the two closed-minded alternatives. The teachers will exalt rationality while the students compensate for that extreme by favoring irrationality. The closed-minded condition of all participants perpetuates the conflicts ad infinitum.

1. Closed minded irrationality is the realm of emotional baggage, addictions and humans behaving badly. It's negative experiences that happened to us and where we went with them after we internalized them in limiting ways. It's a world of living in the past with the same old history repeating itself. It's as if what can happen gets constrained by what already happened that cannot be changed. Those convictions are very emotional and run very deep. There are nothing like more superficial intellectual beliefs and rational convictions.
2. Open minded irrationality defies logical reasoning just like its closed minded twin. This is the space where all is possible that we can imagine. It's explored with a sense of wonder and the use of what-if questions. We uncover unforeseen avenues to explore by delving into different scenarios. We play out our future here and find what we'd love to do and how rewarding it could feel. We live in our chosen future instead of our dreaded past. This realm is equally emotional and deep, but in contrast to closed minded irrationality, it's brimming with positive feelings about ourselves, activities and others we can help out.
3. Closed minded rationality is where we go to get things done. This is the realm of being productive, task focused and reliable. We do things in a logical order for rational reasons. We justify our methods and measure our results. This is the world where we can look good, impress others and win their approval.
4. Open minded rationality is how it's possible to relate to others and collaborate with them. We listen enough to gain a sense of where they are coming from. We connect with their intentions to respond in ways they will find helpful, supportive or valuable. We see what they need and ways we can assist them getting those needs met. We grow to value their diverse interests, different outlooks and distinct priorities.

When all four quadrants get called upon in an educational experience, it's no longer possible to have lingering motivation problems. If one arises, it's merely an exploration of closed minded irrationality that can get responded to or counterbalanced by any of the other three realms. A motivation problem can be a sign of no future to look forward to emotionally at the moment. It may be an indication of relationships or collaborations that fell apart or deteriorated into abuse. It may reveal an opportunity to launch a new project, complete something that's already started or upgrade the rationale for something that needs to get done. When it's said "motivation problems are thing of the past", participants in these experiences will get the pun.

Inducing realizations

When we're presenting, authoring, teaching or designing instruction, we're relying on a field-tested theory about learning. We may assume that the only things coming to the minds of the learner are from us. We may otherwise assume we're competing with many other things that come to their minds besides what we're presenting.

When we assume we're in control of what comes to learners' minds, we're inclined to think that we can make learning happen. We've simplified our world view to include so few variables that we're overconfident about our role in the complex interdependencies. We presume to educate by delivering to, imposing on, coercing the internal processes and manipulating the outcomes from the minds of the learners.

When we assume the learners' minds are out of our control, we're open to the possibility that learning happens emergently. We've complicated our world view to include complex adaptive systems, ecological models and adaptive outcomes. We've gained a different perspective on our role in the system. We're one more pea in the pod, bozo on the bus or drop in the bucket. We presume to educate when we do what it takes for learning to happen on it's own and to come about naturally. We stop trying to make learning happen and then let it happen by trusting the complex processes involved in the minds of the learners. For the past two decades, I've been calling this approach "inducing realizations".

One way to induce realizations in the minds of the learners is to contrast two approaches. For instance, I've just compared "making learning happen" with "letting learning happen". This breaks up the assumption that there is only one way to function, react or decide about how to proceed. It "voices a choice" that may not been previously considered. It may induce added complexity to educators' cognitive networks which routinely respond to situations which call for presentations or instructional designs. It implies that more will come to their minds than what I've just put into it by reading this. I'm assuming readers will come to your own realizations about the significance, uses and value of this choice within their personal contexts. They'll  make up their mind as they're so inclined. Perhaps some learning will happen.

Leveraging your empathy for the learners

When we already know the material we're going to present, our minds become free to know the learners. We can spend time understanding them in ways they understand themselves. We can prepare to speak their minds and picture them in ways that induce more learning. This cultivated ability to empathize with the learners can be leveraged into more effective instructional designs, learner experiences and disruptive value propositions.

When I've spent time "learning the learners", here's some of what I've discovered:

• There's a range of different expectations about what I will do for them, with them and in spite of them. Some are cynical and expecting the worst. Others are optimistic and trusting me to provide exceptional value.
• There are lurking fears about who this may get off to a great start but end up disappointing them. Some are afraid this will be over the heads, moving too fast to keep up or too basic to be of any use.
• There are those who want to be told the facts, methods and guiding principles. Others want to understand why this approach makes sense, how it compares to others and when it's not applicable.
• Some learners assume classroom experiences are done to get the grade and nothing else. Others expect to apply what they learn in other classes and then later in life. Some organize their efforts to prepare for the test while the others prepare to enrich their understanding.

When we understand these kinds of variables, there are two ways to mention them to the learners. One way belittles them by saying "I know what you're thinking" and implying "How could you be so stupid?". The other opens their closed minds by saying "Some of you share these concerns" and implying "You want to get the most out of this investment you're making". The first approach is manipulative and attempts to control the learners. The second approach is empathetic and relates respectfully with the learners.

This same contrast occurs in the formulation of disruptive value propositions, innovative educations products and new business models. The first lacks empathy for the learners and pushes the product in their faces. The attempts to deliver the product backfire. The other leverages the empathy for the learners and creates demand for them to inquire into, explore further and realize for themselves the value in this offering. The effects on the learners are enduring, mutually beneficial and significant.

Making instruction more inclusive

Neil LaChapelle recently mentioned on LinkedIn that he is "trying to design a new, more inclusive online class structure". With my recent reading of books addressing issues like employee engagement, tribal mindsets, social capital, and crowdsourced contributions, my head is full of ideas for inclusive structure.

I know from experience that an instructional design will appear exclusive and disinterested in the learners when it's "covering the material". The premise of working at content to deliver or expertise to transfer sets up a closed system. Opening it up for any kind of involvement will slow down the pace, drop out some of the material or give the wrong impression by drifting "off message". Formal content and recognized expertise are presumed to already be right, finalized and authoritative. It appears senseless to make the content wrong, incomplete or questionable when considering "how to cover the material".

Inclusion makes all the sense in the world when we start from a different premise. Here's an array of different premises and how each leads to more inclusive structures:

• What if the content is a "beta release / work in progress" getting refined or finalized by incorporating varied user experiences. The design needs to be open to learners inputs that can further the progress, refine the upgrades or redirect an unresponsive approach.
• What if comprehending the material cannot be done heroically, in isolation or by independent study. The design needs to allow for the comprehension to emerge from the complexity of varied voices, viewpoints and frames of reference among the social network included in the design.
• What if the structure is an experiment that uses the learners subjects to study the effects of the content on their mood, motivation, initiative, creativity or other responses. The structure then needs to include the subjects as the real subject matter in order to experiment with different versions of the content to realize the best effects.
• What if the tutoring of individual learners outside of the scheduled times is too time consuming to be feasible. The design needs to scale the tutoring by arranging for peers to help each other with requests for additional examples, restatements of the original idea, clarifications, feedback on trial formulations, working through sample test questions, etc.
• What if the content is known to produce confusion in the minds of most learners. The design needs their input to explain their confusion, tryout alternative clarifications and get feedback on the degree of success with each attempt at alleviating the confusion.
• What if the content is inherently useless until learners take the initiative to apply it in a personal context. The structure needs to be open to contexts provided by the learners where uses can be made of the content, questions about adapting the abstract principles/skills in pragmatic ways and practice thinking through the content in realistic scenarios.
• What if the content is a solution to the learners' particular problem that will get perceived by them as valuable, easy to remember and worth doing well. The structure needs to include the learners as the customers who will takeaway the value, put the ideas to work and test their viability as solutions to problems they face right now.
• What if the content can be learned, but it cannot be taught. The design needs to tell stories, play games and and solve mysteries to see if the learners "get it" without being told something abstract that "isn't really it".

Of course this is only a partial list in beta release that's known to generate lots of confusion when crammed with heroic efforts. :-)

Menu of missing components

After writing out yesterday's Creating useful workbooks, I got to thinking about improving the menu to get started with the work flow for resolving emotional baggage. Lately I've been seeking a way to simplify the choices to improve the attraction of the workbook to lure heavily burdened riders off their bandwagon. Here's what I came up with:

What if there is only one thing missing that keeps emotional baggage from getting resolved? If it's something that's missing, nothing we do to fix what's obvious will fill in for what's not here yet. Here are twelve possible "missing components" that could each resolve emotional baggage in short order. Which one of these gives you the strongest feeling of being true for you?

1. Are you missing a viable choice between what things are and what those things mean to you personally?
2. Are you missing a better story to tell yourself about what has occurred and how far you've come since then?
3. Are you missing a innocent outlook that frees you from your past and fills you with curiosity about what lies ahead?
4. Are you missing a better scorecard when shopping around for who, where or what you want to experience next?
5. Are you missing a deeper lesson to be learned from what defied your reassuring predictions about how the world really works?
6. Are you missing a deeper, recognizable pattern to explain your repeated misfortunes, setbacks or rejections?
7. Are you missing a way to breakup of the stalemate between your persistent baggage and your contrary, conscious intentions?
8. Are you missing a creative combination of avoiding familiar dangers and exploring new opportunities?
9. Are you missing a different diagnosis from what you believe must be the real problem to get solved?
10. Are you missing a self-fulfilling prophesy that frames your weaknesses as real strengths and shortcomings as genuine assets?
11. Are you missing a way to refine how you express yourself after years of being repressed, inhibited or stifled?
12. Are you missing a trusted change model to guide your journey from what always happens to what can be true from now on?

Ordinarily, short phrases make for more legible menus than long sentences. Yet posing a dozen "what-if" questions like this seems to make the alternative work flows more accessible and appealing. Making a menu of questions creates a different effect from typical chapter headings. Hmmm.......

Creating useful workbooks

As you may already know, I've been designing new workbook processes as I've explored the inner workings of emotional baggage on this blog. Any useful workflow for resolving emotional baggage has got to fit the many ways that baggage functions. Otherwise, the procedures will prove to be useless make-work that yields no beneficial results. Here are some of the challenges I've identified while I've been formulating workbook processes for the past two months:

• Requisite variety: The field of cybernetics tells us that a system must be as complex as the range of variety in that system's environment. We need to pack our bags with enough different kinds of clothing to handle the different weather conditions where we're going. Emotional baggage has become increasingly complex in my understanding as I've explored so many different dynamics in it. This goal to match that complexity frames most solutions as "over-simplifications" while constantly calling for more nuances and interconnections.
• Looking in the mirror: Anything we say about others may be talking about ourselves. Anything we see may reflect where we're coming from. Anything we try to fix in others may be the very thing that needs revision in ourselves. There are always these questions to consider, self awareness to factor in and self reference to own up to whenever we're thinking we can be helpful to others. This workbook has be looking at my own baggage regularly.
• Creating effective solutions: It's very tempting to create problems when we're offering something that relieves symptoms of deeper problems. It's essential to solve for pattern rather than try to fix one part of a big problem. Effective solutions take effect comprehensively where isolated solutions create additional problems, backfire and feed the underlying problem. The workbook to alleviate baggage repeatedly appears to activate learners' baggage from factory schooling and shut down their vibrant growth process.
• Freedom of choice: Cafeteria-style offerings let each individual "take what they need and leave the rest". Each learner serves as the best judge of their appetite, situation and next step. There is no forced-feeding or excessive conformity when learners can choose from an extensive menu of options. The offerings then function as tools for the learners' active use rather than content to be passively consumed. This workbook design struggles with offering a wide-ranging menu in a foreign language where the learners cannot sort out the options for themselves.
• Helpful maps: When there are extensive offerings and countless interconnections, the complexity can overwhelm the learner. It's helpful to provide a map or narrative framework to organize their individual explorations. Rather than dictate a "one size fits all" sequence of exploration, individuals get equipped to recognize where they are on a map. This picture also gives them a sense of their progress from a previous position and choices to consider for their next move. Different designs for this workbook to resolve emotional baggage leaves the learners with so much to make up their own minds about, they can feel "lost without a compass" amidst a forest of mapped-out options.
• Personal projects: When individuals are working on their personal projects, the formal structure provided allows for informal learning by each person. The learners get challenged to express themselves, follow their inner guidance, trust their personal motivations and respond to their unique situations. Their project turns out very differently from any other while fitting the parameters of the same project accomplished by each. This workbook has definitely given me a sense of working on a project, while withholding that experience from the future users of it.
• Comforting closure: Leaving a procedure open for individual exploration and customization can also leave the learner hanging in limbo. The open system offers no closure unless there is a way to wrap up an open-ended process. When closure gets experienced, the learner gains a sense of accomplishment and confidence in his/her ability to do this again successfully. This workbook project has lacked closure for me and thus come from a place where others will share in the misfortune.
  

This has been a difficult list for me to write out, and thus very helpful. Like the writing about our personal baggage, past history and problems, the realizations come to mind slowly. The work of making the unconscious awareness conscious takes confidence and determination.

Learning to solve problems by example

When we're focused on problem solving methods, books and expertise, we forget how we've all learned most of our problem solving skills by example. We teach others as if we are not providing an example to learn from. We assume others need to be taught by delivering new content. We prepare others to talk about problem solving more authoritatively without changing how well they will solve their problems or which kinds of problems they're capable of solving.

The teaching-learning thing often creates lots of problems for everyone involved. For students it's problems with their loss of comprehension, curiosity, motivation, personal reflection, follow-thru, and cooperation with other learners. This is an immediate set-up for the students to learn from the example of how the instructor handles these problems with learning from the instruction. The students' problems usually give the instructor his/her own problems with covering the material, maintaining the pace, steering clear of distractions, completing the exercises, generating discussions and evaluating contributions fairly.

The instructor may also acquire a mirror-image set of problems with learning from the students' problems. The teacher may experience a loss of: comprehension of the students' problems, curiosity about the causes of the students' problems, motivation to accurately diagnose and resolve those problems, reflection on personally contributing to the problems, follow through with individual students and cooperation with the students' contrary outlooks. When the instructor acquires this mirror-image set of problems, the problems go unsolved. A profound lesson is taught by example: problems with learning cannot be solved and take too much time out of formal instruction. Students get the message that's their situation calls for pretending to learn and sweeping their troublesome problems under the rug. Learning to not solve problems becomes the takeaway lesson.

When an instructor takes responsibility for the students' problems with learning, a very different lesson gets taught. The instructor diagnoses those particular problems accurately, and ultimately solves those problems with the students active participation. The students get shown how problems with learning can be solved, dealt with intentionally, and utilized as the most important lesson to be learned. The instructor's approach to the students' problems with learning becomes a positive, self-fulfilling prophesy. It becomes obvious to the students how versatile and competent that teacher's problem solving skills appear to be. Students learn how to solve lots of other problems (a.k.a. metacognitive strategies, skill generalization, self-efficacy) from the teacher who solves the immediate problems both the students and teacher are having with each other.

These occasions of learning to solve problems by example are so rare because problems with learning appear to offer no solution. Instructors do not leap at the constant opportunities to solve problems of comprehension, curiosity, motivation, etc. The nature of these problems defy conventional problem solving techniques. they give us emotional baggage, not confidence, efficacy or freedom from our past history. More specifically, these problems are:

• organic, not mechanistic or easily fixed
• reciprocal exchanges, not one person's doing
• maintained by an underlying system, not an isolated phenomena
• symptomatic of a deeper problem, not obvious or revealed by evidence
• deceptive, not straightforward or easily uncovered
• perceptual, not objective or independent of prophetic influences
• baggage related, not an indication of knowledge or skill deficiencies

When these problems get addressed as problems with baggage, not with solving problems, the diagnose clears up everyone's frustrations. Attempts to fix each other get dropped. Labeling each other as incompetent, threatening or wicked no longer fits the evidence. Patterns of taking excessive blame or dishing out abuse get interrupted. Resolving the baggage issues solves the problems with learning.

Not news to them

Whenever we realize we know something that is new someone else, we instantly morph into a SME (Subject matter expert). It matters to us to share what we know. We get in gear to spread the news as if it really matters. We become an author of what we say or write and an authority in this moment of glory. We expound text, generate content, and line up bullet points to make our point. We know what to say because it appears to be news to the others.

Once we realize it's not news to them, there several places we can go in our minds:

1. We can be silenced by their already knowing what we know. We can feel powerless to be anything but a SME, authority and author. We can convince ourselves that we're fresh out of news to spread.

2. We can see the audience as colleagues who also spread the news. We can help them pass it on from their own viewpoint. Instead of restricting their access to media and centralizing the authority to speak, we can distribute the right to author the news. We can create a read/write web, a vast blogosphere and a long tail of content generators.

3. We can discover what those now in the know do with this knowledge we shared. We can discern their context of use, their basis for finding this news valuable and the challenges they're facing in applying this understanding. We can give them experiences with changing their minds from "talking it" to "embodying it in practice", putting their understanding to the test of what really works, or giving them situations where it makes a difference to use this knowledge.

4. We can get the whole idea behind the thing we know and share. We can consider how the opposite idea can sometimes be good, true or included. We can ponder ways to combine the partial understanding into a complete picture. We can realize how everything matters and nothing really matters until it's whole.

Wherever we go in our minds, it's good for something, someone and some experience.

In your fantasies

How does learning happen in your fantasy world? Can people get everything they need to know from a book by smelling the pages? Does it take rubbing their hands on the paper? Are there magic sunglasses they can wear which gives them immediate comprehension of everything they look at?

On a page in WikiEducator: Learner as Protagonist, JRR Tolkein is portrayed as an exemplar for learning with our imaginations:

The fact that an author can create a fantasy world with linguistically analogous constructs with the real world reveals a mastery level of knowledge and skills in that individual - a mastery level which educators strive for at CAA. Students who are able to combine their skills as both artists and scholars and become creators of their own world fulfill a key goal of the learner as protagonist; development of the confident learner identity through creative self-expression.

Perhaps comprehension occurs by simply immersing oneself in a conversation about it. What if understanding came about by writing the unknowns into a story that gets resolved in the end? Learning could even happen by deliberately not learning something, refusing to understand it and stubbornly dismissing the ideas. Then the extreme positional stance would bring about the total opposite without effort.

How does blogging affect learning in your fantasy world? Do learners gains skills from the read/write web? Are their significant changes in their thinking by linking to and commenting on other blogs? Does learning come about by the immersion in so many writers who are obviously learning by expressing themselves, thinking out loud and realizing more insights in the process?

When we bring our fantasies into the process of learning, we empower our love of learning. We see reality in a new light by setting up a desirable contrast to it. We create some suspense in a story that engages our emotions and sets us up to be the hero/heroine.

Alleviating unconscious incompetence

I've been shoveling snow this morning, both here and at the next door neighbor's. When I finished, I continued designing the immersive workshop on relating. I've recently been pondering the learners' initial problem with "unconscious incompetence".

The possibility I'm exploring with them is "off radar" from their familiar considerations, alternatives and expectations. After a lifetime of troublesome experiences with relating, they are most likely convinced they are right to expect dissatisfaction. They know from experience that other people don't relate well, don't reciprocate in kind and don't understand people who are very different from themselves. The possibility of deeply satisfying relating seems naive, impractical and overly optimistic. The learners assume they don't know about this because it does not exist in the realm of realistic expectations.

Coincidentally, I discovered that Steve Roelser wrote today about the four stages of learning that begin with unconscious incompetence. He brought up the topic in the context of consciousness raising and giving people conscious reasons to change. Good stuff!

It occurred to me that most content delivery "makes learners wrong" for their maintenance of unconscious incompetence. A presenters actions speak louder than words. The actions of teaching, preaching and authoring come across as insensitive, propagandistic and domineering. Everyone is being told the same information. Explicitly the informative presentation says "listen to this". Implicitly that presentation is saying "never mind what you're feeling, what you've been through in your life, what's happened to you recently, or what you think is the right approach to this".

I get around this when I'm mentoring entrepreneurs because we are conversing one on one. We explore "what happened to you?" because I'm not addressing many people at once. But mentoring is not scalable. There must be a way to send a different message than "never mind...." when presenting to larger audiences.

So far, I'm considering adding a brief overview of "inconceivable alternatives" to send that different message. Here's a glimpse at that approach:

When we know things from experience, that's all we know. We don't know what we don't know. We are not aware of having blind spots, overlooking possibilities and ruling out creative solutions. We're convinced by our experience to trust what we've discovered works for us. That means that something we don't already know is going to be inconceivable to us. More specifically, the new possibility may initially appear:

• unfamiliar, strange, surprising
• unexplainable, mysterious, puzzling
• unalterable, lifeless, stagnant

By validating their initial experience of inconceivable possibilities, I'm intending to send the opposite message: "I'm considering what you're feeling, what you've been through in your life, what's happened to you recently, or what you think is the right approach to this".

Still serious about delivering content?

Yesterday, Mark Berthelemy gave us a comprehensive answer to "how is content dead?" This was not sweeping condemnation or diatribe. He nailed the coffin closed incisively and superbly. I'll simply throw a bouquet on the top.

Imagine your audience of learners, trainees, students or attendees already has experience. They have each role played over a hundred different characters. They have hours of practice outfitting their avatar with abilities and resources. They have experimented with different combinations of traits and observed how those choices affected other role players' interactions and one's own outcomes. They know what the letters "MMORPG" stand for (**) and know which ones are the most fun, best challenges and more fulfilling scenarios.

What are the chances they see real people are pretenders? 100%? How can they take their own act seriously when they have changed their traits more times and ways than they can recall. Why wouldn't they expect us to "act like we're acting" and stop pretending we're serious? They must wonder why we don't stop morphing into the same avatar with no settings to adjust, no combinations of resources to explore, and no recognition of other's game face.

So when we are covering material, presenting information or delivering content, they must be astonished. When do they get to pretend to be engaged this process? How do they get to strut their arsenal in the midst of this ordeal? When do they get to confront this assault to their agendas, do battle with this creepy monster, or test the strength of this somewhat clueless, but aggressive warrior?

Why are we in a position of power with no magic spells, weapons or exceptional endurance? What kind of Sim are we that insists on acting the same way all the time? How can we think we are succeeding when the way they keep score says we are accumulating significant penalties and no points in the game. Which beginner level are we still playing on and when will we face the next set of challenges on our own quests?

** massively multiplayer online role play games

Technorati tags: MMORPG, role plays, avatars

Thinking about assessment

In loosely coupled assessment Mike Caulfield bemoans the latest round of LMS vendors pitching the control of learner experiences.(Thanks for the link Harold!) Meanwhile, I've been reflecting on the differences between thinking and what occurs to our minds when we're not thinking. It's becoming clear to me how thinking limits us and often makes us part of the problem. Here I'm defining thinking as dualistic and as the opposite of reflective practice. I'll call what occurs to our minds otherwise: "inspirations".

Thinking assumes people are too incompetent to know how to evaluate themselves.  Learners are presumed to be in need someone smart enough to tell them how they did. Inspirations see people as smart enough to learn from their experiences by critiquing their own outcomes.

Thinking says learners need to be tested to measure how much they have retained of the material covered. Inspirations say learners need to test what they have been given to see if it works for them and makes the difference that has been claimed.

Thinking says learners don't have a framework to assess their partial comprehension because they are still ignorant. Inspirations say learners will upgrade their framework in the process of evaluating their own understanding.

Thinking says learners are not affected by the context of the evaluation, only by the data delivered. Inspirations say the context of evaluation has more impact than the content of the feedback.

Thinking claims the context of assessment is the objective evaluation of evidence using normative standards fairly and consistently. Inspiration says the context is created by the subjective premise of the assessment:

• how this is wrong (half empty) or how this is right (half full),
• how this fails to comply with imposed expectations or how this succeeds at making progress
• how this is a deficient error to be corrected or how this is useful mistake for identifying a misunderstanding
• how this is deserving of penalties for lack of achievement or how this is worthy of recognition for development of understanding
• how this is non-compliant with standards or how this is expressing creativity

Thinking about assessment can function as a self-fulfilling prophesy. If we see the learners needing evaluation, they will think they need evaluation. They will not think otherwise or may not have it occur to them that imposed evaluation is misguided.

Inspirations about assessment also functions to create evidence of it's premises. If we see learners capable of self-assessment and improving their self-critique with practice, they will become self reliant and responsible. They will discern the toxic effects of imposed assessment and dismiss it out of their self-respect and success with self evaluations.

Technorati tags: evaluation, assessment, outcomes

Through the eyes of the learner

Whenever we are acting like factories and delivering content, we cannot think of the customers' points of view. We cannot consider what it's like to be on the receiving end of what we're dishing out. We fail to connect the dots of evidence that we are unresponsive to the customers.

An incredible number of books on business innovation each speak as if they invented the idea of looking through the eyes of the customer. Three of my favorites for making this point are

Each identifies the perils of pushing a superb product onto customers that appear "too stupid to appreciate a good thing when they see it". This issue came up again on Monday with Tony Karrer's Pimp My Course and several links to the original provocation and comments.

I've been pondering why it's so difficult to look through the eyes of the learner when we are creating instructional experiences. Here's some possible explanations:

• Grasping other's outlooks calls for our listening, observing and reading body signals that cannot occur in our minds when we are busy presenting information
• The learners' viewpoints are hypothetical and "not empirically validated", so they are easily dismissed when we are afraid of making conjectures, going out on a limb or blue-sky theorizing
• Binary (dichotomous, black & white, either/or) thinking requires that we be right and dismisses the possibilities of both being right, being wrong or sharing frames of reference
• The kind of thinking we do automatically in the face of threats, dangers and enemies (instinct, fight or flight, defensive, adrenal) does not allow for insight into the other points of view
• Empathy for other viewpoints only becomes possible after our own pride, conceit and self-righteous outlooks have been humbled where we can see others eye-to-eye
• Taking responsibility for our own unresolved issues (hot buttons, insecurities, intolerance) is a prerequisite to regarding others non-judgmentally
• Understanding the learners' frames of reference calls for creativity, thinking outside the box and playing with the meaning of unquestionable facts

These explanations suggest that we don't need information or improved methods to look through the eyes of the learner. Rather its a question of personal maturity, cognitive development or consciousness raising.

Technorati tags: customer satisfaction, empathy, viewpoints

Reversing conventional instruction

Yesterday I read this PDF and then reflected on how that relates to immersion and unconscious learning. I quickly made connections to the empowerment of learners and the desirable effects of instruction on learners. The metaphor of "reversing" conventional instruction came to mind soon after.

Conventional instruction disempowers the learner. When conventional instruction is reversed, the learner is empowered, the outcomes improve and the long term effects are beneficial. The learners are shown respect, put in the driver's seat and given final say in what they understand.

Reversed instruction starts with "the links, not the nodes". Never mind what is going to be learned. Forget learning objectives clearly stated at the start. Assume no content is going to be delivered that could create in a new node in the learners' cognitive networks. Simply start with each learner's current understanding. Make the "uneducated grasp" the topic of study. Explore how that understanding is already linked to the ways the learner handles situations. Discover the context where the learner uses the understanding to explain, diagnose, solve or take action. Come across as pulling for the learners.

Reversed instruction then fails each learner. Never mind waiting until after the test. Forget basing the failure on some objective grading system. Give the learner an experience of their current understanding failing to function adequately. Set the learners up to realize their explanation excludes significant discrepancies, their diagnosis mistakes symptoms for a different cause, their solutions backfire or the actions do more harm than good. Give their current understanding "a bad name"

Reversed instruction then threatens to abandon the learners. Forget giving them something for their money. Never mind keeping up your half the bargain. Suggest that each learner is far more likely to keep using their current understanding than to make any change. Predict that no change in understanding will happen by delivering to them more content, expertise or scientifically validated findings.

Reversed instruction follows this "takeaway" with the presentation of the "educated understanding" that will likely be rejected. Show how it functions. Run through the different ways it explains phenomena, diagnoses symptoms, solves problems and guides actions.

Reversed instruction then puts the "educated understanding" to the test. Never mind testing the students. Forget testing for comprehension. Give the learners the power to test this new "educated understanding". Set them up to evaluate it's worth, utility and functionality. Let them find out if it works for them. Put the understanding to the test to see if they can succeed with it in use.

Reversed instruction then clarifies the learners' choice. Forget reviewing the material that has been covered. Never mind formulating an action plan to implement the advice in the field. Simply handoff the final choice. Show how the educated understanding will only be adopted if it keeps the learners out of trouble and makes them more likely to succeed. If it's useless information, they'll forget it. If it's too difficult to apply, it's gone. If it's misleading and easily bungled, their established understanding will get relied upon until further notice.

Reversed learning works with the unconscious mind. It creates an immersion in danger where something has got to change. The issue is their understanding in use, not new information. The change is set up to occur within the learners. Nothing will be adopted that fails to contribute to personal survival and success. If it works personally, the unconscious will take it on as a new habit. Unconscious competence will be the result.

Technorati tags: unconscious learning, immersion learning, instructional design

Too much of a good thing

When we're getting high approval ratings from our conference presentations or instructor-led training sessions, there's no possibility of too many high ratings. When we are getting lots of subscribers and movement up in rankings while blogging, there's never too much of that success. When a corporation gets on a roll of increased revenue, profits and quarterly earnings for shareholders, more is always better.

When there's never too much, we cannot question how much is enough, when to stop and what to include as a counter-balance. We can only do more of the good thing we've got going.

We don't realize it, but we are functioning as an addict. We cannot stop without going through a painful withdrawal process. We are acting compulsively in a downward spiral. We have no choice and are captivated by our confining premise. We are sabotaging our long term success by being so successful in a short sighted way. We are doing more harm than good to ourselves and those we serve.

Most content delivery is excessive for this reason. It cannot be stopped without a crisis. There's no way to consider pulling for the learners, democratizing the learning, or giving an incomplete. The feedback about increasing narcissism is dismissed as misleading, misinformed or mean-spirited. More of a good thing is called for without question.

The context development of content discovery systems is full of questions. When should we switch to the opposite? What indicators tell us reliably of the learners' need for more freedom, self control and discovery processes? How much is too much of a good thing?

Technorati tags: instructional design, informal learning, success

Different kinds of ignorance

In all my experience with adult learners, there are very few occasions where formal instruction works. It's rare that an adult possesses honest ignorance that is satisfied by the transmission of content. Informal learning is more effective and appropriate because adult learners are more often unteachable, preoccupied and somewhat knowledgeable.

Adult ignorance is usually highly motivated. The desire to remain ignorant is far stronger than the desire to become knowledgeable, skillful, informed or aware. The desires differ and the motivations to remain ignorant can be categorized. When I've taught instructional design, I've used this schema to explain why the need for "training" is so often misdiagnosed and the outcomes amount to "snake oil cures" (90% zero or negative skill transfer rate). This model is also useful to see beyond the evidence of a "barrier to new concepts" and to discern the underlying motivations. With all this, it becomes possible to challenge the design premise that "delivering content will seem useful and valuable to the adult learners".

Retaliatory ignorance: Remaining ignorant is a "great way" to get even with adversaries. Not knowing something can "get their goat" or "pull their chain". Ignorance can function as payback for putdowns, stereotyping or cheap shots. Remaining in the dark can "trip up a bully and pull the rug out from a power tripper". How we've been mismanaged creates a barrier to new concepts.

Structural ignorance: Comfort zones and success routines depend on the denial of information that creates "cognitive dissonance". Any established paradigm dismisses contradictory evidence as a threat to it's consistency and validity. Pride in one's own superiority invalidates the viewpoints which see underlying insecurity and inferiority in the self righteous claims. Advisory panels succumb to groupthink to defend themselves against disruptive information or internal conflicts. These minds are closed to protect their false sense of security from "sticking to their own kind". What we already know creates a barrier to new concepts.

Ostentatious ignorance: Peer pressure often aligns with remaining ignorant. Becoming knowledgeable or competent gets framed as "selling out or kissing up". Then it pays to act clueless both for show and to avoid ostracization. Appearing stupid gains validation from the marginalized subculture of disenfranchised citizens. The incentives in the social system favor the peer validation because there are next-to-none coming from the educational delivery system. Who gives us a sense of membership creates a barrier to new concepts.

Hypnotic ignorance: Schooling, grading, parenting and classmates can give us the impression we cannot learn. We discover we are damaged. Our memory, concentration or ability to comprehend new information does not work like it should. We don't digest, internalize or assimilate what we try to learn. We have fallen under an evil spell or become captivated by an oppressive narrative. We believe what we have been told about being defective, deviant or deficient. We have internalized abuse in a way that disables our natural curiosity, creativity and connecting proclivities. How we've been framed creates a barrier to new concepts.

Honest ignorance: Sometimes we really don't know something and what to clear that up right away. We have the question and were wondering about that just now. If the information was previously available, we didn't notice it because we were not ready for it or did not need it yet. But now is the time. Our minds are like parachutes - working now that they are open. How we've been respected removes the barrier to new concepts.

Technorati tags: instructional design, informal learning, ignorance

Coaching new managers

The March Big Question on the Learning Circuits Blog is "What would I do to support new managers?" My own consulting practice focused on this issue 25 years ago, as well as the software I helped develop for Citicorp Italia -- to take a "coach approach to management development". The word for coach in Italian is "allentore". I was delighted to read Ray Sim's response this afternoon. His framework would be very effective in my experience: self-paced learning, coaching and community. I'll simply add some insights into the coaching phase.

This transition brings up a number of issues for the new manager:

• Replacing the previous friendliness among coworkers with the position of authority and detachment (without becoming cold, distant or hostile).
• Accepting the greater need to manage up, to consider the pressures on superiors and to speak their language of strategy, rival threats, long term concerns and corporate performance measures (without losing the trust, respect and open lines of communication with subordinates).
  
• Letting go of "hands on" problem solving in order to work through others, delegate responsibilities and to simply organize the teamwork (without becoming an aloof recluse or an indifferent, hands-off manager).
  
• Evaluating subordinate performance with objective criteria, conversations about their direct report's own self-criticisms and consideration of their differences, developmental strategies and coworker compatibility issues (not evaluating with comparisons to the manger's own performance, professional growth and personal standards).
  
• Factoring in H/R concerns about policy enforcement and litigation when handling conflicts, complaints and employee demands (not escalating the conflicts or placating the employees out of anger, guilt or fear).
  
• Accepting that this is a "rite of passage" that goes into limbo: where familiar situations seem strange, conversations seem difficult and one's own identity is transforming without direct control (not according to plan, 7 easy steps or fully anticipated from the start).

Understanding these (and many other) challenges raises personal issues with past history, work experiences and destructive feedback from other managers. Particular co-workers may pose problems that appear to have no solution. Attempts to appease the coach can compromise the relationship that is intended to challenge numerous preconceptions, assumptions and past practices.

The best way to work through these issues is to talk them out with the coach or kick them around with a community of practice comprised of other "managers in training".

Technorati tags: coaching, management development