Why blogging is about quality? Because perspectives are shared:

Back in the late 1970’s, the US government commissioned a study to look at effective group decision making. In the study, they asked 30 military experts to study intelligence data and try to construct the enemy’s troop movements.

Each expert analyzed the data and compiled a report. The commission then “scored” each report on how well it reported the actual troop movements. They found that the average military expert only got 7 out of a 100 elements correct.

Each expert then reviewed all of the other experts’ reports and rewrote their initial assessment. The average accuracy for these revised reports was 79 out of a 100.

What was different between the first report and the second? The experts didn’t have any new information. All they had were the perspectives of the other experts. When they added those perspectives to their own, their accuracy increased ten-fold.

The quote is from The KJ-Technique: A Group Process for Establishing Priorities found by James Robertson. This technique seems to be interesting to consider in a combination with Open Space method for BlogWalk meetings (pinging Ton and Sebastian).

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2004/05/12.html#a1203; comments are here.

• An argumentation analysis of weblog conversations
• Personal side of social media: learning from weblogs
• Weblogs as a conversational tool

Dorothy Leonard talked about “deep smarts” and how novices become experts (official keynote description, slides). As I understand “deep smarts” refer to a form of expertise – tacit, unrecognised, distinguishing experts from novices. I post some of my notes first and then a bit of comments.

“Ladder of expertise”: novice – apprentice – journeyman – master

Deep smarts (experts vs. novices)

• use pattern recognition
• draw on their tacit knowledge
• make swift decision based on knowledge about context
• extrapolate from what they see to what might be
• perceive small variations

Compared to novices experts have a lot of “receptors” and broad experiences, so they recognise patterns more easily. Novices have few or no receptors, without receptors information doesn’t become knowledge.

Ways of learning (with increasing independence)

• specific directions
• rules of thumb
• stories with a moral
• modelling
  
• Socratic dialogue
• joint problem-solving
• learning by doing (guided experience)
  • guided practice
  • guided observation
    • creating receptors (mind-stretching)
    • challenging assumptions and beliefs
    • checking role-models
  • guided experimentation
    • response to uncertainty
    • bounded search for feedback from environment
    • learning to think in hypotheses

For me the bottom-line of this talk was that coaching of novices by experts is may be the most effective way to acquire deep smarts. I would be interested to read more on studies Dorothy referred to and I’m getting convinced that I have to spend time studying research on apprenticeship models. If you have any pointers, please, let me know.

Gerald Prast asked Dorothy about dangers of coaching by experts and then we spent great part of lunch time discussing her answer. My summary of why coaching may not be good:

• not all experts can coach novices
• experts can be wrong, so with coaching “wrong expertise” will multiply
• when you learn from experts you are less likely to come up with new ideas

I believe that to overcome those dangers there is a need for more critical skills from novices (=not following gurus blindly, but finding their own path). Next to it an opportunity to learn from many different experts with controversial experiences and ways of coaching will help (but in this case there is a risk of getting lost with multiple role-models). Anyway, both require meta-learning skills which (we know :) are difficult to develop.

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2003/11/15.html#a834; comments are here.

• Trip report (1): blogs and wikis implemented
• Links on reflective skills
• Student evaluation

Course Development Wars: A Content Expert’s Cry for Help by Susan Smith Nash [via Alex Halavais]

This is a story about a teacher (in a SME role) being pushed to fit instructional design categories

Why did education departments brainwash students in this way? Or, more to the point, why do such people think that they are the only ones who possess the right to comment on (more like “make pronouncements on”) learning? I know I’m only seeing a tip of the iceberg, and that there are real and compelling reasons for accepting the results of carefully conducted, IRB-blessed research. Nevertheless, aren’t we sealing our own fate if we allow ourselves to present information and to mediate learning their way only. Heaven help those who deviate from the norm!

This makes me feeling happy that I studied instructional design after several years of learnt-by-doing training design. I remember my reaction for the ID course assignment: ok, I do it this way once and I’ll play my own rules after. I’ve learnt the language, some useful models, techniques and tricks, but I still do it “wrong way”.

A couple of years back I was designing a teacher training program for PhD students. I had to think how to teach them instructional design and avoid the risk of making them thinking that ID models boundaries are those to respect.

The program was implemented, first results were promising, but I left the job, so I can’t evaluate it properly. Still my recipe for teaching instructional design is the same:

spending more time not on studying ID, but on being exposed to different learning designs and facilitation styles (values, models, methods, technology support) + reflection on what, why and how works and on “what I would do differently?”

This is not a very efficient or easy to reuse method. It also depends highly on learners reflective skills or instructors’ ability to facilitate their development (I don’t have a good recipe for it :) It worked for me and for some others and I didn’t find a better way.

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2003/11/03.html#a823; comments are here.

• Student evaluation
• Understanding real value of blogging: time, connectivity, need for reflection
• Slow down time

Follow-ups on Learning: communities vs. courses

George Siemens summarises main benefits of communities and courses and suggests that “good” elements of courses can be supported in communities. I’m not so sure.

Structure and focus of courses have something to to with teacher’s authority (courses are other-directed), while in communities there is no real authority (ok, there are respected experts, but respecting someone is not enough to discipline yourself :) I’m not sure that a combination of both will work.

Jeremy Hiebert reflects on his own learning in different forms (read it!) and describes three main reasons to join formal learning program: credentials, discipline and feedback.

I especially liked parts on feedback in courses and in blogging community. On feeback in blogs:

The blogging community talks a lot about the interaction of blogs, and we’ve all seen some great quasi-conversations emerge across several sites at once, but the type of feedback you get on your writing tends to be somewhat impersonal, even if you get to know the personalities behind the writing. Comments might point you somewhere for more info, or disagree with something you’ve written, but they rarely give you a sense of how you’re doing overall. You might know that Person B disagrees with your stance on standardized testing, and that a study exists to refute one of your points, but you probably won’t get help in improving the articulation of your arguments or research skills.

Bill Brandon summarises problems with communities:

1. Accountability: with formal instruction, someone is accountable for results; and 2. Bad information drives out good

He also adds, “Much of what is learned informally is wrong, and there is no easy way to correct it.” [related: piece on why articulation of implicit learning is important in implicit learning]

Oliver Wrede suggests that not only who is learning, but also what is to be learnt is important for making choices between communities and courses.

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2003/10/14.html#a797; comments are here.

• It takes courage to blog
• Uses of TACIT LEARNING
• Communities and coffee with Nancy White on 5 October

Played with Vivisimo search engine [via Seb's Open Research] that clusters documents next to search, did ego searching, had fun. Found a lot of artefacts of my teaching in Russia: web-based training course web-site, students’ projects (I loved this one – Web usability for HRs). Got nostalgic :)

If things go right I might get into distance teaching: KM course for Russian HR practitioners. Definitely I’m thinking about using blogs. Does anyone has experience of using blogs next to LMS/course environment?

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2003/02/27.html#a478; comments are here.

• Travel plans: Moscow 14-26 May
• More on connections between learning and teaching
• Added value of knowledge sharing

Making people smarter isn’t the point (commenting You cannot make people smarter):

The question of whether you can make people smarter or not isn’t the point. That suggests that only smart people can benefit from knowledge management or other initiatives?

No, that suggests that at the end people learn by themselves :)))

It’s Alan Kay’s old point – point of view is worth IQ points (the actual number being in dispute as is the relevance of raw intelligence to the discussion). Maybe it’s a philosophical point. For me, if you’re still alive, you’re learning. If you’re learning, you’re at least potentially getting smarter in some practical sense.

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2002/08/27.html#a189; comments are here.

• Student evaluation
• Learning instructional design
• KM Europe: Dorothy Leonard

Follow-up for You cannot make people smarter:

Not every organisation believes that, e.g. the amount of money spent each year on training that doesn’t work.

I was curious to browse links a bit. Nanette Miner says about three reasons:

1. The training is created by individuals with limited experience and background in the field of training and development.
2. The training is created by subject matter experts.
3. The training is designed without clearly thought-out objectives.

I guess, there are more reasons, but I’d like to focus on one of them: why subject matter experts are not good in creating training (formatting is mine).

The misguided logic of the Paulette Principle is this: If you are good at what you do, you must be able to teach others to do it. Training designed by subject matter experts spells disaster in one of two ways:

(1) Basic information is left out because the subject matter expert does not recognize what basic means anymore, or

(2) the subject matter expert is so hot on their topic that every possible nuance of the topic is included in the training.

It illustrates my idea about differences between teaching and knowledge sharing. Even if someone wants to share knowledge, it’s not necessary that he can help others to learn.

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2002/08/23.html#a157; comments are here.

• Learning communities
• More on connections between learning and teaching
• Knowledge cycle and different types of learning

To teach is to learn by Curiouser and curiouser!

What an excellent question: “What connections exist between learning and teaching?”

To sides of the same coin? Not sure. Rather I see that when you care about teaching something to someone you make a commitment that requires deep understanding to fulfil. The act of committing to teaching is the act of committing to understanding, to learning.

As an example Stephen Covey advises everyone who wants to learn about the 7 habits of highly effective people to begin teaching it within 24 hours of starting to learn. Of course I had no-one to hand so I had to use my cats. Have you ever tried teaching a cat to “Think win-win”? Go on, I dare you!

Maybe this is why I find the 7-habits so hard…

I love this example :)

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2002/08/23.html#a155; comments are here.

• More about context and tacit
• Learning: communities vs. courses (2)
• Learning instructional design

Follow-up thinking from previous post.

Sometimes I catch myself wishing to do some kind of teaching (training, coaching). Although I’m in research now, previous few years of helping others to learn has impacted me badly. I miss it, and I use any opportunity to do it even as an extra workload.

I was curious about a driving force behind it. I thought about this energy and excitement I get when people are growing with my help, but this was not explaining the whole. Now it gets clear: this is my own way to learn. It also explains why I’m not so eager to give the same course more than three times: probably this is enough to understand.

I wonder what connections exist between learning and teaching, or, in KM context, between learning and sharing. Are those who dare to share and eager to learn are the same people? Are these two sides of the same coin? May be it’s a coincidence in my case :-)

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2002/08/22.html#a151; comments are here.

• Blogging as jazz (2)
• Differences between teaching and knowledge sharing (2)
• KM Europe: Dorothy Leonard

From David Gurteen comments to Uncovering the implicit (a bit late to notice :-)

One of the things that Stephen Covey does before a workshop is to get the members of the audience to commit to teaching within the next week or so – the material they are about to learn – as this changes their mindset when they are learning becuase they know they need to understand it well if they are to teach it and they will furthr consolidate that learning wehn they come to teach it … there is probably a good reference or quote from Stephen somewhere – I will look out for one …

First, as David says it helps to get more serious attitude towards learning. Next, it helps with learning transfer and application, as teaching someone else

• requires to come back to the material and to do it in the work settings (why it works)
• requires being a role model and gives extra motivation for practicing
• creates a group of people “talking one language”, which makes it easier to apply new knowledge and skills rather than simply returning to the old habits.

So powerful! Definitely something to use in my practice.

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2002/08/22.html#a150; comments are here.

• Learning: communities vs. courses (2)
• Making people smarter isn’t the point
• Student evaluation