Recently, there has been a national discussion of education in the US within our media. NBC and the Oprah Winfrey Show both had programs about education in the last two weeks. The final verdict: tenure is the reason our schools are failing and the responsibility of education is in the teachers' hands alone (they must be accountable for failing schools).
I look at part of this as a result of the charter school movement and a movement to break up teachers unions to bring down costs of education. After watching programs on NBC and the Oprah Winfrey school, I think it is important that misinformation that was spouted by such experts as Bill Gates and Mayor Bloomberg (both businessmen first) need to be addressed.
1) Tenure is NOT automatically given to teachers, as both of these men contended on TV. First, tenure requirements vary from state to state and even school district to school district. In New York State, a board of education needs to grant tenure to a teacher. Some school districts won't look at tenure until someone has worked for 4 years. Others will grant tenure after a year. Many of us know of teachers that have not been granted tenure, sometimes even for just political reasons. The purpose of the tenure system is to ensure academic integrity. I find it ironic that Oprah's program discussed with horror the difficulty of firing a teacher who was incompetent (who was eventually fired once she went through a set out process, but that took about a year) while about 10 years ago she had a program about a teacher who was forced to change a failing grade to students who had blatantly plagiarized. The threat of being fired because someone in power has his or her own agenda means that a teacher could be forced to teach something that might be scientifically unbased. This happened to teachers who refused to teach a curriculum they believed was religiously based rather than scientifically based. Because of tenure, these teachers had the ability to keep their jobs and fight a small group of powerful people in their community.
2) Charter schools vary from state to state. I am actually a supporter of charter schools, as long as they must follow the same rules as the public schools and they offer something different to a population that cannot be met in a traditional public school. There is research that some states have a very effective charter school system that has improved the overall state education system (Wisconsin and Oregon). However, I do not believe that ANY company should be profiting from the government (charter schools should be non-for-profit). Also, charter schools should not have a religious or political agenda (they need to follow the same rules as a traditional public school). On Oprah, charter schools were touted as THE cure for education. However, I see this as throwing out the baby with the bath water. There are some good schools and some bad. We need a variety of models that will fit different communities, cultures, resources, and values.
3) The fact is that a smaller class size will result in more effective learning. Likewise, students who do not live in poverty and/or have literate parents do better in school. The current No Child Left Behind "accountability" focus on standardized testing in which a teacher is responsible if a child does not pass a test is an inaccurate measure of effectiveness.
In a report by Al Roker on Elementary Schools, the school that was highlighted had the average class increase from 20 students per class a decade ago to 32 students per class today. I know of a kindergarten teacher (1st year of school in New York State) who is expected to teach 25 5-6 year olds (usually with no previous education such as pre-school or even at home help from parents) how to read by the end of this school year. All without help in the classroom. Last year she was successful as she only had 16 students.
We need to look at student improvement from their starting point to their ending point (rather than measuring them against students from more privileged backgrounds). We need to put resources into the needs of the school based on their community, not a standard formula. And we need to find new ways (besides testing) to measure student performance.
4) We are not China, Switzerland, Japan, or South Africa. What works in their countries might work here in the US, but perhaps not. We need to develop an educational system that works with our communities, culture, and values. To do this, we need to move away from the industrial military complex attitude towards education that we are developing workers. When I went to school, schools were developing citizens that could make informed decisions. However, even as a student that began to change and we were told that education was to prepare us for a job of the future. This streamlining was used in France up until the 60's at which time Europe began to see that education was more than creating workers.
The current focus on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) has wiped out what made the US successful: creativity. A colleague of mine from Hong Kong was disappointed in her University Program in the US because there was no creativity allowed. My daughter's school, which was designed with STEM in mind, ended up being more important as a school that allows students with creative minds to succeed in STEM courses. A project based curriculum based on group work develops communication, problem solving, and creative skills for students that normally would have difficulty in learning math and science. What is interesting is that students that were especially gifted in math and science, in fact left the school or had the hardest time to adapt to this style of learning.
The fact is the US is loosing its place in the world because of lack of innovation. Innovation comes from creativity, not fitting a static mold set out by standards.
5) Finally, education is a joint process between the administrators, teachers, students, community, and parents. All are equally important and responsible. Until we use a model of community education building rather than competitive education, we will not have an effective educational system in the US.
I applaud the media for at least discussing education in the US. I just wish they would present a more informed and balanced discussion. The fact is that in some places, the educational system is working. In others, people are working hard to improve the process (but with mixed results) and in still other places the system has broken down. The biggest mistake we could make is to fix that which is working well, not giving those working on change the time and resources to succeed, and trying the same old policies in those areas where those policies have not worked and probably will never work.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
New Collaborative Virtual Spaces: Sending a forwarding address
Over the last few years, I have collaborated with a number of people that I either have never met face to face or who live too far away to meet on a regular basis face to face. I moved from listservs to discussion boards to blogs and now to facebook. What I have noticed is an initial period in which I participate as a spectator (i.e. a member of the listserv receiving updates but not posting), then I move on as an active member. I then begin to build a trusting relationship in which I feel there are good conversations and a safe area to disagree and resolve intellectual disagreements.
My experience fits fairly closely with online community research (See Ruth Brown's research, for example). However, after a while, a new technology will come online and members of the community (not all) will begin to emigrate to the new format, leaving the one community to help develop and become part of a new community. As this happens, however, suddenly, a virtual colleague is now missing with no forwarding address.
I often wonder, where are they? Where did everyone go? How do I contact them again and stay in touch? what makes things even more difficult is that different members will gravitate to different technologies (and thus different communities). It is impossible to stay in touch with all new technologies, so we choose those technologies that meet our needs at that time.
I think that there needs to be a protocol for disbanding a community and/or migrating it to a new technology. In the snailmail, we have a forwarding address. It might be good if we began to use the same mechanisms as we leave communities. Perhaps someone will develop a directory in which the most commonly accessed addresses are listed for an individual. I currently do this by googling people's names. However, if there was an interactive directory that you could use to identify where people are posting and where you are most apt to contact them, it would be helpful to follow your community through cyberspace.
My experience fits fairly closely with online community research (See Ruth Brown's research, for example). However, after a while, a new technology will come online and members of the community (not all) will begin to emigrate to the new format, leaving the one community to help develop and become part of a new community. As this happens, however, suddenly, a virtual colleague is now missing with no forwarding address.
I often wonder, where are they? Where did everyone go? How do I contact them again and stay in touch? what makes things even more difficult is that different members will gravitate to different technologies (and thus different communities). It is impossible to stay in touch with all new technologies, so we choose those technologies that meet our needs at that time.
I think that there needs to be a protocol for disbanding a community and/or migrating it to a new technology. In the snailmail, we have a forwarding address. It might be good if we began to use the same mechanisms as we leave communities. Perhaps someone will develop a directory in which the most commonly accessed addresses are listed for an individual. I currently do this by googling people's names. However, if there was an interactive directory that you could use to identify where people are posting and where you are most apt to contact them, it would be helpful to follow your community through cyberspace.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Dissertation: Analysis of the Impact of the Environment on the Group
In order to understand the interaction between the distributed group, individual group members, and the organization and its departments within this study, it is important to understand the various working environments and perceived power structures.
There were numerous environments that an individual might have to work with as a member of the project under study. In addition, there were multiple layers of authority and vested interests (share-holders) that influenced individual members and the group itself at any given time.
From an ethnomethological stand point, this group influenced and was influenced by the complex environment that a distributed group creates. Distributed groups create multi-layered power structures, multiple cultures which workers need to traverse, and intricate social relationships, both internal and external to the group. These complexities are both created through the new power structures, work processes, and cultures that are established when bringing together group members from various departments and locations. However, distributed groups also create complexity for the departments and organizations where they are located as group members try to align goals, work processes, priorities, and even the image of the group and departments where they work. As a result, a distributed group may be working within a much more dynamic environment than that of a single department within a common location.
In looking at this group, some conclusions about the impact of this more complex environment on the group could be drawn:
• There were differing interpretations of perceived authority within the group, the departments, the project, and the organization especially when there was no clear authority structure imposed on the group.
• According to the group, there was very little perceived cultural change within departments and the professions that group members identified with. However, the group’s culture appeared to fluctuate to align with the perceived power structure’s culture. Some group members were able to adapt; but for others, they either left the organization or tried to change the culture within the perceived power structure to meet their own comfort level. This was dependent upon their perception of their own empowerment and importance within the group, their department, and the training and home organizations.
• The greater percentage of the group member’s time that was dedicated to the project, the greater perception that they had a vested interest in the project and its outcome. This also lead to those with a vested interest feeling more entitled to contribute to the project, which then lead to them having a greater role with in the group’s power structure. In other words, those that did not have additional duties outside of the project, believed that they should have the greatest influence on the project direction and decisions.
• The complexity of the environment made it difficult for group members and the management team to determine who exactly was part of the group (intragroup identification) and what an individual member’s role was within the group. Related to the previous point, those with the greater percentage of time dedicated to the project were closely identified with the Healthcare Counseling group. However, other factors such as acceptance by the group members, recognition by the management team and departmental power structure, and perceived expertise within an area the group and individual members identified as important also had an impact on whether others within the group recognized someone as a member or not. Those that individual members recognized as being part of the group, were included in project work processes and communications. Although, not everyone recognized by individual members was recognized by the group as a whole as being part of the group.
• The power structures, both internal and external to the group, were dynamic and not static. As a result, there was continuous realignment of goals, work processes, perceptions and expectations to maintain balance both within and outside the group. This sometimes required changes in the group culture, channels of communication, project formats and tools, and management (power) structures.
• The writing projects were both informed by and influenced communication, work processes group identity and member roles, and project goals and standards. The formats, physical layout, and virtual tools created both physical and psychological boundaries within which the group functioned. At times, these boundaries had to be renegotiated, either intragroup or between external power structures (stakeholders, departments, management). There were four strategies that were used: 1) accept a boundary (process, expectations, format, standard, etc…) as it was imposed on the group without any changes or comment, 2) adopt a process or format from one of the departments as is or making minimal changes to align with the group’s beliefs and processes, 3) maintain multiple processes or formats as long as they could be compatible with boundaries imposed externally, modifying those that were outside of the imposed boundaries, or 4) create new formats and processes from scratch to fit within the boundaries imposed externally. The strategy used depended on time constraints, the degree of perceived difference outside of the group, the level of ownership both to the project and the work task/product, the support (or lack) by the group members and/or power structure, the affect on personal, professional, or departmental image, and level of personal investment to certain aspects of the project.
• Related to this was the consistent tension between work processes established at the various levels of the power structures within the work environment. These tensions were often resolved either by 1) collaboration, 2) compromise, 3) subversion, or 4) withdrawal from the organization or project.
There were numerous environments that an individual might have to work with as a member of the project under study. In addition, there were multiple layers of authority and vested interests (share-holders) that influenced individual members and the group itself at any given time.
From an ethnomethological stand point, this group influenced and was influenced by the complex environment that a distributed group creates. Distributed groups create multi-layered power structures, multiple cultures which workers need to traverse, and intricate social relationships, both internal and external to the group. These complexities are both created through the new power structures, work processes, and cultures that are established when bringing together group members from various departments and locations. However, distributed groups also create complexity for the departments and organizations where they are located as group members try to align goals, work processes, priorities, and even the image of the group and departments where they work. As a result, a distributed group may be working within a much more dynamic environment than that of a single department within a common location.
In looking at this group, some conclusions about the impact of this more complex environment on the group could be drawn:
• There were differing interpretations of perceived authority within the group, the departments, the project, and the organization especially when there was no clear authority structure imposed on the group.
• According to the group, there was very little perceived cultural change within departments and the professions that group members identified with. However, the group’s culture appeared to fluctuate to align with the perceived power structure’s culture. Some group members were able to adapt; but for others, they either left the organization or tried to change the culture within the perceived power structure to meet their own comfort level. This was dependent upon their perception of their own empowerment and importance within the group, their department, and the training and home organizations.
• The greater percentage of the group member’s time that was dedicated to the project, the greater perception that they had a vested interest in the project and its outcome. This also lead to those with a vested interest feeling more entitled to contribute to the project, which then lead to them having a greater role with in the group’s power structure. In other words, those that did not have additional duties outside of the project, believed that they should have the greatest influence on the project direction and decisions.
• The complexity of the environment made it difficult for group members and the management team to determine who exactly was part of the group (intragroup identification) and what an individual member’s role was within the group. Related to the previous point, those with the greater percentage of time dedicated to the project were closely identified with the Healthcare Counseling group. However, other factors such as acceptance by the group members, recognition by the management team and departmental power structure, and perceived expertise within an area the group and individual members identified as important also had an impact on whether others within the group recognized someone as a member or not. Those that individual members recognized as being part of the group, were included in project work processes and communications. Although, not everyone recognized by individual members was recognized by the group as a whole as being part of the group.
• The power structures, both internal and external to the group, were dynamic and not static. As a result, there was continuous realignment of goals, work processes, perceptions and expectations to maintain balance both within and outside the group. This sometimes required changes in the group culture, channels of communication, project formats and tools, and management (power) structures.
• The writing projects were both informed by and influenced communication, work processes group identity and member roles, and project goals and standards. The formats, physical layout, and virtual tools created both physical and psychological boundaries within which the group functioned. At times, these boundaries had to be renegotiated, either intragroup or between external power structures (stakeholders, departments, management). There were four strategies that were used: 1) accept a boundary (process, expectations, format, standard, etc…) as it was imposed on the group without any changes or comment, 2) adopt a process or format from one of the departments as is or making minimal changes to align with the group’s beliefs and processes, 3) maintain multiple processes or formats as long as they could be compatible with boundaries imposed externally, modifying those that were outside of the imposed boundaries, or 4) create new formats and processes from scratch to fit within the boundaries imposed externally. The strategy used depended on time constraints, the degree of perceived difference outside of the group, the level of ownership both to the project and the work task/product, the support (or lack) by the group members and/or power structure, the affect on personal, professional, or departmental image, and level of personal investment to certain aspects of the project.
• Related to this was the consistent tension between work processes established at the various levels of the power structures within the work environment. These tensions were often resolved either by 1) collaboration, 2) compromise, 3) subversion, or 4) withdrawal from the organization or project.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Start of a new semester
Well, last month was especially busy as we start looking for colleges for next year for my son and he registered to take a couple of college courses while he is in high school. I'll blog about that experience later.
Today, though, was the first day of classes for me. I'm excited as I'm trying out 3 new things:
1) I've created a facebook group in place of the Ning. Since Ning went commercial and I don't have time to test out the new mechanisms for educators, I decided to try facebook. Many of my students are already on facebook, so I thought I'd give it a try. They can upload their video assignments, ask questions about the class, and/or get updated information about the class. The only thing I have been unable to figure out is how to upload documents (I think I'll end up just emailing them).
2) I've decided to include a real audience for my students. For their group presentation assignment, they will either go into an actual classroom and give a presentation on college life or they will create a vodcast which will then be viewed by a real life class.
3) I have included the original Shirley Sherrod speech to view as one of the class assignments. For those that may be unfamiliar with her, she was the Department of Agriculture employee who was fired (or asked to resign) because of an "inflammatory speech." A section of the speech was uploaded as a clip on a conservative blog and the clip, which was taken out of context from the entire speech, accused Ms. Sherrod of discrimination. However, when you watch the entire speech, Ms. Sherrod's message was the complete opposite, advocating reaching out and giving support across races so that the poor of our country can be lifted out of poverty. In fact, it is a very inspirational speech in which she breaks many stereotypes (i.e. all people of color are powerless, all poor people are people of color, if you are white, you have access to power and privilege). My objective in using this speech is to discuss how to craft a speech without having portions lifted to be used against the speaker and/or give an unintended message. I feel this is especially important in the electronic age of sound bites.
Today, though, was the first day of classes for me. I'm excited as I'm trying out 3 new things:
1) I've created a facebook group in place of the Ning. Since Ning went commercial and I don't have time to test out the new mechanisms for educators, I decided to try facebook. Many of my students are already on facebook, so I thought I'd give it a try. They can upload their video assignments, ask questions about the class, and/or get updated information about the class. The only thing I have been unable to figure out is how to upload documents (I think I'll end up just emailing them).
2) I've decided to include a real audience for my students. For their group presentation assignment, they will either go into an actual classroom and give a presentation on college life or they will create a vodcast which will then be viewed by a real life class.
3) I have included the original Shirley Sherrod speech to view as one of the class assignments. For those that may be unfamiliar with her, she was the Department of Agriculture employee who was fired (or asked to resign) because of an "inflammatory speech." A section of the speech was uploaded as a clip on a conservative blog and the clip, which was taken out of context from the entire speech, accused Ms. Sherrod of discrimination. However, when you watch the entire speech, Ms. Sherrod's message was the complete opposite, advocating reaching out and giving support across races so that the poor of our country can be lifted out of poverty. In fact, it is a very inspirational speech in which she breaks many stereotypes (i.e. all people of color are powerless, all poor people are people of color, if you are white, you have access to power and privilege). My objective in using this speech is to discuss how to craft a speech without having portions lifted to be used against the speaker and/or give an unintended message. I feel this is especially important in the electronic age of sound bites.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Are Forums obsolete?
Tony Karrer posted a query for suggestions of how a financial institution can replicate an online forum which they had previously been successful in creating.
This was my comment:
Tony then posed the question as to whether I thought there was no role for forums in the corporate any more. This was my answer:
What do you think?
This was my comment:
Part of the problem in financial institutions today (as opposed to two years ago) is that they are under the scrutiny of regulators. I have been an employee in an atmosphere of high government regulation (I was an internal auditor) and learned never to put anything in writing that I was not absolutely sure of. It could come back to bite you. This sounds like a similar climate.
It seems to me that first there needs to be a sense of connection with the other members of forum outside of the forum. Once this has been established, the community needs to feel that they need the online forum. How has the forum been set up? How will they use it? Will there be a moderator? Will it be private? Anonymous? How will you insure the group's privacy? How will you remind them that the forum is there? Often, having a forum that is linked to a vital website is more useful than one in which they receive email updates.
To get them to use the forum, you will need to have "events" that will bring them back to the community (i.e. online training events, important updates from those in authority, interviews or guest "appearances" by key decision makers or stake holders). I think if you were to look at the previous forum, you will find that there was some hook that got them going and/or key personnel that maintained the forum. My experience is that there are some groups that just won't share and others that won't do it online.
Finally, I would look to the tools being used. With twitter and other "shortened" tools being used today, a forum is outdated and not useful. A social network such as facebook or ning gives a more informal feeling, but also requires a moderator to update information. This person, from the concerns you have identified, should be someone in a position of authority so the information provided is validated and filtered.
Tony then posed the question as to whether I thought there was no role for forums in the corporate any more. This was my answer:
I wouldn't say that a classic forum won't ever work. It depends on the community. I think older workers would prefer the forum format (i.e. upper management). However, I think as workers are being squeezed for time, attention, and accountability, they need tools that will fit their community's "personality". If they are facebook users (which more and more people are), they will want to access information through facebook. If they have all received training through a ning or other tool, they are familiar with that tool so are more apt to use it. If they are following each other on twitter, they are more apt to want to share information using that format. But the tool should come from the community rather than the training or IT department forcing them to use something. The ideal would be to negotiate between the two groups what would work.
What do you think?
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Help with my new blog format
As you can see, I decided to change my blog a bit, use a new template, update the blog list, include my tags. It looks great on the design page, but I can't get the design page to match up how it looks on the web. I'm trying to figure out how to make the blog page smaller, but so far haven't figured out how to do so. So if any of you can give me help on this, I'd appreciate it.
Meanwhile, at least those of you who prefer the larger font will appreciate it (my husband loves it as he can read it without glasses!).
Meanwhile, at least those of you who prefer the larger font will appreciate it (my husband loves it as he can read it without glasses!).
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
The line between beginner and expert and all that other grey area
One of the reasons I haven't written as much on my blog is that my son was preparing to take his driving test (for the second time). An editorial in Parade magazine says it all about how stressful this is.
Yesterday, as my son drove about 40 minutes away to the driving test site, I could actually sit pretty relaxed without feeling the constant adrenaline rush that curses through my body as he makes a mistake such as missing the red light or stop sign as he drives through the intersection, or leaning down to see what was brushing his leg while forgetting to steer (almost ending us in a ditch) or forgetting to slow down as he made the turn. In fact, I felt pretty confident that he would pass the test this time, which he did.
However, as I drove off from the site and he began to talk about all of his driving plans, I suddenly got that adrenaline rush of fear. Yes, now he has his license and he can drive by himself. But who will help him when he meets a situation he has never faced before. Will he panic, as he has tended to do while learning to drive? Now I will be scared for at least another year every time he goes out by himself.
"You will not be driving by yourself except for a few places that I know you are comfortable with," I announced. He rolled his eyes and reminded me he now had his license and in 12 days, when he turns 17, his senior license.
Moving into the intermediate grey zone
As we negotiated his driving privileges, he commented, "You know, mom, I know I still have a lot to learn. I consider myself an intermediate and I still will need to drive with you in the winter until I learn how to drive in the winter or at night. But you have to let me drive by myself, because I'm not a beginner any more."
This got me to thinking about when it is safe to allow someone to do a dangerous task or work that might have serious results without any direct supervision. I think, for example about drawing blood, creating a pharmaceutical IV, cutting lunch meat, or conducting a biotech experiment. In all of these cases, workers eventually will be expected to be on their own with some minimal supervision (periodic check-ins, paperwork, performance review). However, in each of these professions there is a tipping point when the task becomes second nature and the person can handle any unexpected occurrence that is thrown their way. Up until that point, however, the risk of danger is the greatest.
Why? Because the worker will not necessarily look to others for help, feeling that they should know how to do something. In my experience, an expert is more apt to ask for help if he or she feels there might be dangerous results, in part because they recognize the dangerous environment. However, intermediates don't know enough to see the potential danger in all of their actions. Rarely do you hear about the rookie policeman being injured or killed, because he or she has backup to take over, usually a very experienced police officer who has had multiple experiences to draw on. It is the officer on the job 3-7 years who will be injured, because they know enough about the situation to be part of it, but not enough to anticipate all the potential problems.
So how do we support these intermediate workers to help keep them safe or from creating a dangerous situation for others or the organization?
The following are some ideas based on research, based on my own experience:
1. Have multi-experienced teams that intermediate level knowledge workers can access for help and advice.
2. Create an atmosphere of disclosure so workers of intermediate level skills don't feel afraid to tell others when they are overwhelmed with a situation.
3. Create protocols for workers to access in problem situations. Make sure the workers know how to handle any situation using problem solving skills (rather than having a check list of "what to dos", none of which might fit the situation).
This is just a start of the list. I'm wondering how others handle these intermediate levels that can be quite terrifying for a manager AND a parent!
Yesterday, as my son drove about 40 minutes away to the driving test site, I could actually sit pretty relaxed without feeling the constant adrenaline rush that curses through my body as he makes a mistake such as missing the red light or stop sign as he drives through the intersection, or leaning down to see what was brushing his leg while forgetting to steer (almost ending us in a ditch) or forgetting to slow down as he made the turn. In fact, I felt pretty confident that he would pass the test this time, which he did.
However, as I drove off from the site and he began to talk about all of his driving plans, I suddenly got that adrenaline rush of fear. Yes, now he has his license and he can drive by himself. But who will help him when he meets a situation he has never faced before. Will he panic, as he has tended to do while learning to drive? Now I will be scared for at least another year every time he goes out by himself.
"You will not be driving by yourself except for a few places that I know you are comfortable with," I announced. He rolled his eyes and reminded me he now had his license and in 12 days, when he turns 17, his senior license.
Moving into the intermediate grey zone
As we negotiated his driving privileges, he commented, "You know, mom, I know I still have a lot to learn. I consider myself an intermediate and I still will need to drive with you in the winter until I learn how to drive in the winter or at night. But you have to let me drive by myself, because I'm not a beginner any more."
This got me to thinking about when it is safe to allow someone to do a dangerous task or work that might have serious results without any direct supervision. I think, for example about drawing blood, creating a pharmaceutical IV, cutting lunch meat, or conducting a biotech experiment. In all of these cases, workers eventually will be expected to be on their own with some minimal supervision (periodic check-ins, paperwork, performance review). However, in each of these professions there is a tipping point when the task becomes second nature and the person can handle any unexpected occurrence that is thrown their way. Up until that point, however, the risk of danger is the greatest.
Why? Because the worker will not necessarily look to others for help, feeling that they should know how to do something. In my experience, an expert is more apt to ask for help if he or she feels there might be dangerous results, in part because they recognize the dangerous environment. However, intermediates don't know enough to see the potential danger in all of their actions. Rarely do you hear about the rookie policeman being injured or killed, because he or she has backup to take over, usually a very experienced police officer who has had multiple experiences to draw on. It is the officer on the job 3-7 years who will be injured, because they know enough about the situation to be part of it, but not enough to anticipate all the potential problems.
So how do we support these intermediate workers to help keep them safe or from creating a dangerous situation for others or the organization?
The following are some ideas based on research, based on my own experience:
1. Have multi-experienced teams that intermediate level knowledge workers can access for help and advice.
2. Create an atmosphere of disclosure so workers of intermediate level skills don't feel afraid to tell others when they are overwhelmed with a situation.
3. Create protocols for workers to access in problem situations. Make sure the workers know how to handle any situation using problem solving skills (rather than having a check list of "what to dos", none of which might fit the situation).
This is just a start of the list. I'm wondering how others handle these intermediate levels that can be quite terrifying for a manager AND a parent!
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Writing for learning: deep learning vs. skimming
My process for writing my dissertation coincides with some of the findings I have for my study. This is especially true as my children are now home for summer vacation and I am constantly being interrupted. I try to write at least two hours a day. Often, this is early morning as typical teens, my kids don't get up until 9 or 10 in the morning. I might be in the middle of a significant idea when they come down, speak to me (I can't complain that I actually have teens that speak to me!), trips I need to make, giving a list of things to do for the day, burps/arguements between siblings...you name it.
As a result, I find I have to continually read what I have written and try to capture the thought I had. However, as I am creating the knowledge, what happens if it is lost? Was it truely an important thought? Upon rereading what I have written so as to recapture an idea I might have lost, might I not create a deeper understanding of what I am writing? And where does that idea go that was lost? Is that lost knowledge? Or is it just part of the process of idea generation and knowledge building?
I occasionally see this with my own students, who have created a speech using powerpoint. In their presentations, they will sometimes forget to mention something and may go back to it. I am continually asking them however, how important that piece of information is for the audience to understand them. If they have forgotten it, perhaps it is not really necessary for the audience. However, they may still have that knowledge in their head which allows them to understand what they are saying. That specific piece of information was a building block as they were creating their speech (and a basis for their speech as a whole) but it may not be necessary for others to have that piece for their (the audience's) understanding.
I think of it like a building that is built on the ruins of others. The original building creates a foundation and even a shape upon which a new building can be constructed. However, it is not necessary that the new building be constructed exactly the same as the original. More often than not it is improved upon, creating its own flavor or style. It is a unique creation in the end, which also can be built upon.
It is difficult to let go of the lost ideas, just as it is difficult to create something new rather than going back to the original design. The process as we discard, change, and/or create something new helps us to have a deeper understanding in general of the topic. Writing helps us document our thinking, although not all thoughts will be put down. This might be the underlying reason for why project based learning creates a deeper level of learning, much more than the finished product or even a test could measure.
As a result, I find I have to continually read what I have written and try to capture the thought I had. However, as I am creating the knowledge, what happens if it is lost? Was it truely an important thought? Upon rereading what I have written so as to recapture an idea I might have lost, might I not create a deeper understanding of what I am writing? And where does that idea go that was lost? Is that lost knowledge? Or is it just part of the process of idea generation and knowledge building?
I occasionally see this with my own students, who have created a speech using powerpoint. In their presentations, they will sometimes forget to mention something and may go back to it. I am continually asking them however, how important that piece of information is for the audience to understand them. If they have forgotten it, perhaps it is not really necessary for the audience. However, they may still have that knowledge in their head which allows them to understand what they are saying. That specific piece of information was a building block as they were creating their speech (and a basis for their speech as a whole) but it may not be necessary for others to have that piece for their (the audience's) understanding.
I think of it like a building that is built on the ruins of others. The original building creates a foundation and even a shape upon which a new building can be constructed. However, it is not necessary that the new building be constructed exactly the same as the original. More often than not it is improved upon, creating its own flavor or style. It is a unique creation in the end, which also can be built upon.
It is difficult to let go of the lost ideas, just as it is difficult to create something new rather than going back to the original design. The process as we discard, change, and/or create something new helps us to have a deeper understanding in general of the topic. Writing helps us document our thinking, although not all thoughts will be put down. This might be the underlying reason for why project based learning creates a deeper level of learning, much more than the finished product or even a test could measure.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
A Generation of Teachers
I realized yesterday as my son was teaching me how to text (yes, I couldn't figure out how to text on my phone!) that not only is this a generation of learners, but also a generation of teachers. I see this all the time in my class (online and face to face) and with my children and their friends.
So how are they different from my generation? My generation looked to the teacher for answers. Ultimately, the teacher was the expert who would "teach" us how to do things. If we don't know how to do something, we go to an "expert" who will know how to "teach" us how to do something.
What I noticed about my children's generation is that they take direction from the person who wants to know how to do something, asking a lot of information. I was impressed with the fact that my son asked me if I knew how to do "X", then showed me how to do it, then had me do it. He didn't always have the patience to let me make mistakes and have me try it again. Rather, being a typical teen, he looked at me in disgust and showed me again how to do "X". I find this is the same process my students use (with out the disgust) when showing something to their classmates.
So how are they different from my generation? My generation looked to the teacher for answers. Ultimately, the teacher was the expert who would "teach" us how to do things. If we don't know how to do something, we go to an "expert" who will know how to "teach" us how to do something.
What I noticed about my children's generation is that they take direction from the person who wants to know how to do something, asking a lot of information. I was impressed with the fact that my son asked me if I knew how to do "X", then showed me how to do it, then had me do it. He didn't always have the patience to let me make mistakes and have me try it again. Rather, being a typical teen, he looked at me in disgust and showed me again how to do "X". I find this is the same process my students use (with out the disgust) when showing something to their classmates.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Sports and culture: the case of the World Cup
Yesterday, my son watched the England vs. USA soccer world cup game. As I am sure there was a different vibe in England, this was actually well watched by many of my son's friends...even those that don't play soccer.
Throughout the game, my son was texting one of his best friends from grade school. "What are they thinking??" (The US). "They should be playing the Latin American game. They can't beat the Brits playing a European game.""Where are the middies?."
At the same time, I heard the commentators, "He's doing what a striker should do." "The D needs to mark his man. That's why they made that goal."
So I asked my son, "Do you think they use the same terminology to describe the game as they do in the US?"
His answer was that he once had watched one of the British league games on line and didn't understand a single thing the commentators were saying.
So this tells me a few things about the cultural differences in sports:
Throughout the game, my son was texting one of his best friends from grade school. "What are they thinking??" (The US). "They should be playing the Latin American game. They can't beat the Brits playing a European game.""Where are the middies?."
At the same time, I heard the commentators, "He's doing what a striker should do." "The D needs to mark his man. That's why they made that goal."
So I asked my son, "Do you think they use the same terminology to describe the game as they do in the US?"
His answer was that he once had watched one of the British league games on line and didn't understand a single thing the commentators were saying.
So this tells me a few things about the cultural differences in sports:
- There are cultural differences in strategies. HOW a country plays the game depends on the cultural values they have on winning, "fair play", the team, individual team member responsibilities, and the role of the sport in that country.
- Even in the same language, different terminology develops which reflects the region and country's values. Sports terminology is one of the most culturally ingrained specialty language. Study the sports terminology and its philology and you'll get a good idea of the culture's values.
- Sports has always been perceived as a uniting activity. However, it can also be a dividing activity.
- Look to other cultures and their strategies to improve your own play and understanding of the sport. This could then be used to advantage in other parts of your life (i.e. business, education).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)