Dear Organlearners,
Doc Holloway <thejournal@thresholds.com> replies to Winfried's
passionate plea (LO17636):
> > Is there anybody out there, who can help with this? I am not
> > looking for time-management rules. I know them all up to Covey.
> > But they don't help - I mean may be they would help but I can't
> > manage to put them into action. It reminds me of At's example with
> > the "complex harvesting": It sounds easy when you read about, but
> > in reality, it is much more complex.
> >
> > Yet, I am sure that time-"management" is essential to
> > self-learning.
the following:
> I've been following these threads on the periphery (claiming other priorities
> as the reason for minimal participation) when I read this posting. I want to
> respond with a differently than you asked--I too enjoy disorder, change,
> (hedonism--well, okay, that too) and so forth. Many people want to help me
> (and you) to manage our time. These often tend to be the same people who are
> always trying to manage or control something (including myself)--and I think
> they're full of --uh, good intentions (whew!).
Let us face it, the bottom line is that our time management by
others leads to an external control of our creativity.
Now what on earth has time to do with creativity?
> Time cannot be managed. You could preach to me until you are blue in the
> face, and I would simply not believe (nor can you provide any proof to the
> contrary) that time can be managed. So, I presume that the drill has to
> do with managing myself. Hmmm. This sounds like personal mastery.
> Managing myself. Okay.
Doc, the self-management of time is intimately weaved with personal
mastery. But I will come to that in the last two paragraphs of my
long contribution.
Well, I do not know how much self-learning you will admit in personal
mastery. But for me personal mastery without self-learning is like
the life of a brain-dead human - even if kept alive by an astounding
array of artificial techniques, consuming trillions and trillions of
dollars al over the world.
However, I first want to write something about your sentence
"Time cannot be managed" which contrasts Winfried's sentence
"Yet, I am sure that time-"management" is essential to
self-learning." I have had experiences which involves the statements
of both of you. So let us refrain from playing ping-pong like in
some other threads.
During 1993-1994 I made an experiment with the "emergent learning"
phase of self-learning. We had a Cyber mainframe with the PLATO
lessons running on it. Of the almost seven thousand of lessons
available on it, the couple of hundred chemistry lessons were in my
opnion the best. Yet our chemistry 1 students, even with the help of
these lessons, failed to "solve" the standard-classical "problems" of
chemistry 1. (For example, problems like calculating persentage
composition and balancing equations). Thus the chemistry department
asked me to program lessons for exactly these problems - nothing
more.
Well, I had to tackle this request very cleverly. I did not want to
program lessons merely as an alternative for lessons which did not
work. That would be a waste of valuable time of students and me..
On further consultations it became clear that the chemistry
department wanted me to generate a bank of 500 or more different
instances of the same question (say calculating the persentage
composition) so that no two students could copy one another's answer.
In other words, the computer would merely act as a marker, making
sure that the student solved the problem correctly. For me, this was
even worse than wasting valuable time. Why? To control a student's
learning by means of a machine. I will use a machine to help me in
guiding a student's self-learning, but never to control it. (One of
my desret experiences helped me to free myself from this faustian
doctrine.)
So I agreed on programming these lessons on three conditions:
Firstly, the chemistry department will have to supply me with these
problems (so that I could wash my hands in inocency). Secondly, these
lessons will not be obligatory, as was the case for the ordinary
PLATO lessons (to maintain a superficial consistency). Thirdly, I
will do what is possible with the authoring language TUTOR of PLATO
(since I am not a miracle maker).
Now, computers are usually very good at generating many instances of
the same thing, changing every instance by making use of a data base.
However, the TUTOR language was very clumsy in doing such a thing. It
was designed to do something different, namely to present information
in a pleasing manner and to assist active feedback during learning
with its so-called "arrow structure". I explained this drawback to
the chemistry department and we came up with a compromise. I will
program only one instance for each problem, but they will be given to
the students in a random order so as to hinder students somewhat in
copying the answers freely.
While I was mastering the intricacies of the "arrow structure", it
dawned on me that this "arrow structure" might have just enough power
to guide emergent learning with it. So I transformed every problem
given to me in an emergent learning event and thus created a "arrow
structure" with which to quide the learner through this event. I
certainly tested the Cyber mainframe and the PLATO system running on
it to their limits. One could see on the console linked directly to
the mainframe how its computing power was drawn upon, often close to
100%. I almost felt the millions of transistors throbbing together
like a giant diesel enjine under maximum labour.
Eventually these "Emergent Learning Lessons" (ELLs) were available to
400 students on roughly 60 work stations in addition to the normal
PLATO lessons. These ELLs were wierd in comparison with the other
PLATO lessons. There was no introduction to any ELL, nor any
additional information given. Each lesson began "wham bam" -
immediately formulating the problem upon which the student had to
create the solution on screen and then entering it. If the solution
was wrong, my program detected in the soltion offered what specific
aspect ("so-and-so") of it was wrong. It then gave a feedback with
the form "No. You did so-and-so. Try again". If the solution was
correct, the feedback was of the form: "Yes. From this problem we may
learn blah-blah-blah. Try the next problem."
Now three remarkable things happened. First of all, the students made
much less use of the ordinary PLATO lessons (80% less). They took to
these ELLs (Emegent Learning Lessons) like junkies take to drugs. (I
must add that these lessons were programmed to formulate the
problems, accept possible solutions and giving feedback on them in
our mother tongue Afrikaans and not in English as the ordinary PLATO
lessons.)
Secondly, while working through these ELLs, most students LOST ALL
CONTACT WITH TIME. They often missed their next classes, not
realising the passage of time. In fact, they could not manage time at
all while learning emergently. I wish you could observe what I have
been observing. Their physical behaviour was a sight for sore eyes -
so much chaos of becoming. They were so engrossed in their emergent
learning that they did not care about their physical movements. They
moved their bodies, arms and legs into almost every conceiveable
position so long as it did not prevent them from battling it out
with the key board and screen. And when the correct solution
finally emerged within them, their was a heavenly touch on many a
face, almost like that of my wife after having given birth to each of
our children. Most noteworthy were their eyes, glittering like
jewels is full sunlight.
Thirdly, when a student persisted in failing to emerge to a solution
after spending many hours on it, they came to me or my two colleagues
(who are both physicists) for help. It happened to roughly 50% of the
students and in roughly 10% of the problems. (It a pity that I did
not collect actual data on it.) In virtually all these cases it was
not due to a "deficiency in information on chemistry" which prevented
their emerging learning. They had acquired the necessary information
and often insisted on telling me just how much they know. But they
were not able to use this information in their emergent learning.
They often insisted that there was a bug in the program and that I
should correct it. When I began to investigate in each case why the
student failed to emerge, I found in almost all cases an impaired
essentiality to be the culprit! I showed each student what was
impaired and then, like magic, the student was able to emerge in
a couple of minutes to the correct solution.
My two colleagues in our computer centre were of little help either.
They simply refered the students having trouble with emergent
learning to me. Both were trained in traditional hard core physics
and became later on experts on computers and CBT. But they have
little affinity, if any, for the "new science of chaos, order and
complexity". Furthemore, they view my theoretical and practical
knowledge on the seven essentialities of creativity as "voodoo
science - nonsense". They are of opinion that I should give the
students the correct solution if they persist in faling to create it
themselves. What is even worse, many students had the same opinion!
Unfortunately, we had to withdraw these lessons after two years.
Firstly, although these ELL (Emegent Learning Lessons) were not
obligatory, students became addicted to them, believing that they
were indeed obligatory! This interfered with the management of
their time. How? Emergent learning, like any other emergence, takes
time. The complexer the emergence, the longer the time. The students
were "losing valuable" time by "emergent learning" and were
complaining about it. They rather wanted learning by "knowledge
transfer". They wanted me to show them on the computer screen the
steps in solving a problem so that they could copy it and then
memorise it. I refused to do this because it would only be repeating
what was happening in the lecturing hall - and which evidently did
not work. To use a computer to do the same would be adding insult to
the injury.
Secondly, an ELL kept a student at "the edge of chaos" as long as
the student was buzy with it. It lasted sometimes for three or four
hours, depending on how much time the student had avaialble. It is
very impotant to conceptualise this keeping of the students "at the
edge of chaos". As soon as any student finished with one problem, the
next one appeared. There was absolutely no possibility for digestive
learning during these lessons. Keeping the students at the edge of
chaos for such long periods was definitely not a good thing. I was
already sensitive to the fallacy of "living eternally at the edge of
chaos" and have completed my theoretical ground work for
self-organisation "close to equilibrium" to complement
self-organisation "far from equibrium", but in those two years I
gained immense experience in just how destructive this fallacy is.
Thirdly, the students never had the opportunity to realise why they
had to drive themselves to the edge of chaos and then to operate from
that edge. In other words, I did no better than what happened in the
lecture hall. I simply gave them the problems which were given to
me. They still did not know why they had to learn this chemistry,
even by learning it emergently. Thus "washing my hands in inocency"
brought me no peace.
Fourtly, these ELLs took their toll on the Cyber mainframe and
especially its disk drives. It became more and more expensive to
repair these overworked disk packs. These ELLs also took their toll
on me because I persisted in practicing what others consider as
"voodoo science - nonsense". The only reason why I was allowed to
persist, is that it put mileage on the main frame as never before.
It is sure nice to report about the thousands of hours of intensive
computing which made the system appear very effective.
> But, what it really means from some people is that they want me to
> prioritize the things that I don't particularly find important or
> necessary. Teachers are like this, aren't they? Always demanding that
> students learn things that they don't understand the need for. So, in
> this we are in agreement.
Shame on you Doc, for using the sawn off shotgun so indiscriminately.
Not all teachers demand that kind of learning. And many who demand
that kind of learning, are forced by a system designed to do it. They
acknowledge it openly. A few like me resist doing it - and we know
that our academical lives hang on a thin thread. Even the mighty dean
of a faculty or headmaster of a school find themselves walking on a
tight rope when resisting doing it. The wrath of the mass who
discovers that it is behaving like a slave knows no bounds.
> I need to manage myself to ensure I do things I
> don't want to do, because they provide some form of necessary or essential
> development for me to do the thing I want to do. Sort of like practicing
> on the musical instrument is a prerequisite to successfully playing a
> beautiful composition.
Yes, it was the same with me.
> The elements necessary for me are the following:
> 1) the belief that a given action will provide me the skills necessary
> to achieve a specific goal;
I believe the same, summarised in general by the tenet
"To learn is to create".
> 2) that my motivation (my vision) is strong enough to alter my
> behavior so that I'll work on those skills (what Fritz calls structural
> tension);
A vision can have only so much strength and nothing more. The
majority of students find out, somewhere along their journey of
learning, that their vision does not afford them strength any more.
The majoirty of them fail to emerge to a stronger vision. It is then
when their path of learning ends. Some of them cross my path. I
consider it not as a coincidence, but as a predestination to help
them to resume their paths of learning once again, but now as paths
of self-learning leading to personal mastery.
> 3) that I have the time to pursue this goal (creating a focus
> and eliminating distractions).
It is this "that I have the time" which is exactly so problematic.
It is true that we need time to pursue our goals. In order to fulfill
these goals, we have to create. Every creation takes time. The more
complex the creation, the longer its creation time. (It all has to
do with "entropy production", the way in which an "increase in
entropy" and an "increase in time" combines into one entity.)
If we assume that we have many years available to pursue our
goals, many of us usually attend to those goals requiring lesser
complex creations. In other words, many of us find time for lesser
complex creations with a smaller creation time, but postpone the more
complex creations requiring a large creation time. It is because the
more complex a bifurcation become, the more complex both the
emergence and immergence become. We manage to survive the lesser
complex immergences, leaving us time for similar less complex
bifcurcations. We believe that these immergences will not take their
toll because we are still capable of managing lesser complex
emergences. But what we fail to see, is that these lesser complex
immergences prevent us from having more complex bifurcations,
irrespective of their outcome.
But should we assume or know that we have only a few months or a
few weeks or even a few hours to live, many of us behave in the
opposite manner. It is then when our past self-leaning is brought to
the crucial test. It is then when we suddenly acknowledge goals which
we managed cleverly for many years to shut from our eyes. It is then
when the deep meaning of liveness, sureness, wholeness, fruitfulness,
spareness, otherness and openness surface.
It is then when heroic deeds happen. It is then when the bravehearts
emerge. It is then when we make choices which will involve perils and
tribulations without thinking once about them. It is then when the
deep nature of bifurcations in the human spirit reveal itself - that
which makes us different from all other living species, even the apes
closest to us. It is then when we deliberately choose constructive
emergences, come hell or high water, rather than destructive
immergences, even should we self immerge by our choices. It is then
when unconditional love, the strongest vision we can emerge into,
brings tears to the eyes of posterity with its miraculous outcomes.
It is then when even the angels of heaven and the devils of hell
become quiet - - hush, for a human is finaly acting humanely.
> Well, this is probably enough--off my soap box
The same here.
Best wishes
--At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>