Replying to LO27987
Dear LO-learners, dear Ana:
At 21:08 14-03-2002, Ana Neves wrote:
>Some time ago I started working on the differences between Universities
>and Learning Organisations. I started with a list of those differences and
>then began working on each of those differences.
I would like to congratulate you for suggesting to the LO-list this
subject that, as you know, really interests me. And to give me the
possibility to resume the dialogues with you, now in a different setting
and list(s) and - unfortunately - not in my mother tongue :-(
As others, I went back to your site and I think that your "list of
differences" could be a very good suggestion of sub-threats to discuss in
the list.
Let me first repeat here your list of differences that can be found at
http://www.kmol.online.pt/especial/univlo/index_e.html
Universities Versus Learning Organisations
* Forced learning * Voluntary learning
* Lack of trust * Trust
Mechanical thinking Systems thinking
Individualism Shared vision
Imposed decisions Shared decision and creation
Only some are heard All are heard
Learning or teaching Learning and teaching
Learning through theory Learning through practice
Tree structure Circle structure
Competition Collaboration
Treat individuals as children Empowerment
Students and teachers apart Multidisciplinary teams
Individuals Communities
Information hiding Information sharing
As At, I tried to see the list of "differences" and I think it is really a
pity that the clickable texts are so often only in Portuguese. With how
many people can you discuss them if they are in Portuguese only?
And it is also a pity that in some cases your texts seem (to a reader) to have
their foundations more on theory than in your own practice and in a reflection
on that practice - even if I know that you are grounded on reflection on
your own experiences, that doesn't always show up. Isn't that in
contradiction with your "difference" on
Learning through theory vs Learning through practice ?
But lets go to the text on trust that you suggested, text that, BTW, was
not one of the "differences" in your "first version", some years ago (I am
surprised that At has not yet discovered in the Net that "first version"
;-)
>"One of the main characteristics of a learning organisation is the
>information sharing between all members of staff. For this to happen there
>must be trust, sharing spirit, and collaboration spirit.
>
>This is another version of the egg and chicken problem. What came first?:
>the trust or the information sharing environment? On one side it is
>necessary to trust people before sharing with them. On the other side,
>sharing gives proof of a trustworthy person. Besides, sharing environments
>improve individuals' self-confidence. None of these aspects comes alone
>and all seem to prove the importance of trust: both trust on each other
>and confidence on one self.
I never understood the egg-chicken problem ;-) But I understand yours. But
it seems to me that again you are "creating theory" more than reflecting
on your experiences. In your experience of (something similar to a) LO,
what came first? I have my opinion about that, but I would really like to
know yours.
In my opinion, it was sharing. Indeed in Universities, Professors - even
the best ones - generally, don't share the ideas they want to present on
papers, or anything they think is important - they share "elementary
concept" that will maintain the barrier Prof.-student. Neither do they
encourage students to share their ideas with other students and with the
Professor, especially when they disagree with the Professor. Neither do
they encourage other teachers or professional to participate in their
relations with their students (including mailing lists). So, the first
thing that is needed is to create a sharing environment. And then the
encouraging way that the "facilitator" will use to answer to the students,
and the role model he constitutes to the communication between the
students themselves will progressively create trust? Do you agree with
that?
>Learning organisations promote trust between individuals. In order to do
>that, they value their ideas, treat people equally, create public
>discussion areas, show each person's importance, reward collective work,
>etc..
>
>However, a set of thoughts and behaviours is so embedded on the academic
>culture that they prevent the creation of trust:
>- the teacher knows more than the student: the student doesn't feel free
>to externalise his ideas and doesn't dare to challenge the teacher. What
>does he know? Besides, and if the student decides to break this
>conventional barriers, what will the teacher think of herself having a
>student questioning her knowledge? This is, obviously, something that
>inhibits self-confidence;
Yes, from their previous experiences, students have a "shared mental model"
or "belief system" of "not trusting, not questioning" (the Prof.'s, old
values, etc),
So, a "facilitator" that wants to encourage shared learning has to create
conditions for that model to change. A safe environment in the class and in
lists is important. But it is not enough. As soon as possible, students must
be provoked in a way that allows them to confront themselves with their
mental models. One way can probably be to say: "have you already
considered that maybe everything that you have learned so far may
be wrong?" It is only after that provocation that some students will begin
to think freely and not "by the book", and will eventually confront the
facilitator (occasionally even about that particular sentence ;-).
And it is only after that first insight happens in some students that the
facilitator may show how to behave in a non judgmental way and
show that divergent opinions are well accepted. That is difficult, and
needs time, but is not impossible, as we both know.
The point I want to make is that the beginning is not so much a question
of trust but a question of competence from the facilitator in creating a
sharing environment that is safe. For that there are some conditions the
facilitator must fulfil - and again I think that they are not common in
most Universities I know.
First she must be able to communicate herself in a way that encourages
discordant opinions to be expressed. And this means she can't behave in
any of the many ways teachers normally use to show that they are "in
control" and they know "all the answers". She must expose herself to
criticism and be profoundly convinced that what she thinks she knows may
be wrong and be perfected, eventually through the contributions from
students. She must really respect people and show that in real acts. She
must walk her talk.
The point in my opinion is that one can not change people that behave
according to what Argyris and Schon call Model 1, if one behaves itself
according to Model 1. Only facilitators that behave in accordance to Model
2, can create a safe environment for change from Model 1 to Model 2 (more
about that in some days and in a different thread). One can probably say
that those facilitators are able to inspire trust in the students - but I
think that given a safe environment self-confidence and self-trust (does
this word exists?) will come naturally.
>- the teacher has more power than the student: the student goes to the
>university to get a degree and has to be assessed. The teacher is
>responsible for this. It is better not to contradict the teacher not to be
>penalised on the assessment;
It depends - from my student's experience (many, many years ago), in a
less democratic time, I recall that a student can always contradict the
teacher, and still have good grades, if he his prepared to study MUCH
MORE.
>- students have to be better than their peers: traditionally
>organisations prefer graduates with better grades (although this is slowly
>changing).
IMO, that is NOT true. Many companies prefer working capabilities rather
than higher grades. Let me be clear, Ana, that is a lye some teachers told
you. Probably the same ones that tried to convince you to continue for a
master where you would wrote papers for/with them. As, by that time, you
had never been out of the Univ. you believed in them. And as they also
have rarely lived in real work environments out of the UNIV they can
eventually believe that they were telling you the truth. But now that you
have working experiences, can you confirm, that school grades are
important for entering in a company and, more important, for promotions
and raise of salary? Your colleagues with worse grades are unemployed? Are
they underpaid?
>Getting a goodjob is the goal of every student. The market is
>tough. The number of graduates is high. The competition rises. Students
>know they have to get good grades and, preferably, better than their
>peers'. This, together with the natural human competitiveness, hinders
>collaboration and trust;
That's true. But again it is competitiveness induced at the school, by
Professors that frequently don't know what happens outside.
>A cultural change is needed. It is necessary to rethink the evaluation
>system and show the marketplace that a graduate cannot be labelled just by
>his grades. This would be a very important step towards trust on academic
>environments."
No, Ana, I think it is easier than that. The marketplace is not so silly as
you
believe it is.
The evaluation system of Universities must be changed not because of that
but because of other reasons - to induce cooperation, to show that every
piece of work must be reused for further learning of self and others (and
that happens with papers/presentations/Web pages but not with
examinations), etc.
To conclude: I agree that trust (especially self-confidence) is a very
important point. But it is not the clue. Initial lack of trust can be
overcome with values and attitudes, and through proposing activities where
the self-confidence of students will improve - like organizing a big
professional event, or studying and later presenting parts of the
curriculum to their colleague. And never referring explicitly to the
"trust question".
Warm Regards
Artur
PS. As you can understand this is my first contribution to our "book" - you
would not expect me not to point to the disagreements, in name of a false
"dialogue" that sometimes also inhibits learning...
--"Artur F. Silva" <artsilva@mail.eunet.pt>
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.