Replying to LO24798 --
Dear Organlearners,
Bill Braun <medprac@hlthsys.com> writes:
>Could I not have said, to At for example, "At, you lost me,
>bring that down to earth for me. What does that really mean
>in simple terms?" I would have contributed to broadening the
>view, not debating the one best view.
Greetings Bill,
You have made a very important point here, thank you. I have changed the
topic from "Our LO Dialogue Here" LO24798.
I am willing to explain again and again, each time in a different way. It
does not tire me, nor does it frustrate me. But I do wish learners will
discover for themselves that authentic learning does not depend primarily
on teaching. By saying this I know by experience that many learners think
I say nice, but do vice.
A very common learning problem is that a learner does not make sure
exactly what s/he is NOT understanding. This can be done by making sure at
every place in the web of that uncertainty what the learner does know. I
usually help the learner by questions to trace the web. I draw the
learner's attention to fact that I will be doing it -- insight into double
loop learning. By eliminating what is sure, the learner is eventually left
with only what is not known. By that time, more than often, the learner
will come to sureness self by way of emergent learning. "Ahh, now I
understand it." I make sure to draw the learner's attention to the fact
that as for the uncertainty itself, I have told the learner nothing, but
that the insight came from within -- double loop learning.
Another common learning problem is that the learner expect the learning
difficulty to be in the very subject topic itself and not in the learning
or the underlying creativity. In such cases the learner usually want to
overcome the difficulty by rote learning rather than learning about
learning (double loop learning) or learning about creativity. This is a
difficult problem to solve when the learner BELIEVES that the subject
topic, the actual learning and the underlying creativity involved have
nothing to do with each other. What has to change, is the belief of the
learner and this, I firmly believe, should be done by the learner self. My
usual strategy is to pinpoint by way of questions the learner to this
belief of her/him and then ask how s/he got this belief. Their usual reply
is "But is this not academy works? Where will you ever found a teacher who
actually connects the three into one?" This affords me the opportunity to
introduce wholeness and its healing to the learner.
A last common learning problem which I want to draw your attention to, is
that the learner believes that confusion on a topic can always be resolved
by simple explanations. This is not so. When the topic has reached a
certain level of complexity, simple explanations will not bring clarity,
but will actually become the very cause of the confusion. It is as if a
certain law operates here which I can call "The law of requisite
complexity" (the complex analogy to Ross Ashby's own law involving only
otherness). It is very difficult for the learner to question this belief
as an authentic belief. The reason is that this belief seems to be
authentic when the learner operates from the paradigm of simplicity rather
than complexity. My strategy in this case is to weave the learner's
understanding in terms of PERSONAL experiences so as to create the
experential knowledge from which the tacit knowledge and finally the
explicate knowledge can emerge. This takes time and the learner's
impatience is the greatest obstacle.
The three learning problems above are common to my own way of teaching and
thus South Africa in which we live. Most leaners who have benefitted in
learning and creativity from my teaching in chemistry have benefitted in
their other subjects too. But other lecturers who have a strict
disciplinary outlook grounded in the paradigm of simplicity consider these
three problems to be only minor, if problems at all. Many of them also
ascribe the failure to master the subject material to a lack in
intelligence and that the task of the educational system is to weed out
the less intelligent from the higher echelons of learning. As to all rest
of the Personal Mastery and not merely the subject material involved, they
belief that they have nothing to do with it.
I have discussed only three learning problems (disabilities) commonly
encountered in personal mastery. Senge discuss many more. But I am sure
that many of you fellow learners can shine more light of all colours on
this subject too. Please do so because what apply to your country and
culture(s) may open our eyes too. Should complexity indeed be the paradigm
of the future and should the "Law of requisite complexity" hold, then we
do need all your inputs how little relevant they may seem to be.
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.