Open Thinkering

Menu

TB871: Four Stages of Competence (and the Johari Window)

Posted on by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category. 

The Four Stages of Competence, also known as the Conscious Competence Learning Model, is a framework used in psychology and education to help individuals understand their journey from incompetence to mastery (‘Four Stages of Competence’, 2024).

A coloured pyramid labeled "Hierarchy of Competence" with layers indicating unconscious competence, conscious competence, conscious incompetence, and unconscious incompetence from top to bottom.
CC BY-SA TyIzaeL

The initial stage, Unconscious Incompetence, is where individuals are unaware of their lack of a particular skill. They do not recognise their deficits and may even deny the usefulness of the skill. For example, I’ve experienced rejections for jobs I’ve applied for without feedback .This can leave job seekers unaware of the specific skills needed for improvement.

At the Unconscious Incompetence stage, transparent feedback mechanisms and opportunities to observe skilled practitioners are important. Meanwihle constructive feedback, mentorship programmes, and self-assessment tools can provide the necessary support.

Moving to Conscious Incompetence, individuals become aware of their incompetence and recognise the value of acquiring the new skill. This stage is often marked by the realisation of mistakes as part of the learning process. For instance, I realised that I didn’t know much about Systems Thinking but it seemed relevant to my professional life. So I decided to Systems Thinking through an MSc programme giving me a structured way to learn the necessary knowledge and skills.

For Conscious Incompetence, this kind of structured learning programme and access to comprehensive resources can be ideal. Additionally, peer study groups, workshops, and extensive learning materials help individuals at this stage.

In the Conscious Competence stage, individuals start to acquire the skill and consciously apply it. This requires significant effort and concentration. For me, applying skills in project management and learning design with conscious effort and focus would be good examples.

As individuals reach Conscious Competence, they need opportunities for practical application and to receive continuous feedback. Collaborative projects, such as the ones WAO works on, performance reviews (if you work in that sort of organisation), and real-world practice scenarios are helpful.

Finally, Unconscious Competence is reached when the skill becomes second nature. Individuals can perform the skill effortlessly and may be able to teach it to others. For example, over the past weeks I’ve been recognised as a warm and generous facilitator for online events. I didn’t even think about this, which shows that I’m doing it effortlessly.

For those at the Unconscious Competence stage, mentorship roles, leadership opportunities, and continuous professional development are ideal conditions. Advanced training, leadership roles, and opportunities to mentor others support this stage.

It struck me, especially given that the module materials represented the four stages as four quadrants of a square (The Open University, 2020), that this has overlaps with another technique that I’ve used before.

Comparing and contrasting with the Johari Window

The Johari Window is a psychological tool used to improve self-awareness and mutual understanding. in other words, it’s a technique designed to help people better understand their relationship with themselves and others. Designed as a heuristic exercise by Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham, the ‘Johari’ window is named after a combination of their first names (‘Johari Window’, 2023)

Johari Window with four quadrants labeled Open Area, Blind Area, Hidden Area, and Unknown Area.

This approach complements the Four Stages of Competence by focusing on self-disclosure and feedback.

AspectFour Stages of CompetenceJohari Window
Stage 1

Lack of awareness		Unconscious Incompetence

Not aware of the lack of a skill or need to learn it.		Blind Area (Unknown to self, Known to others)

Aspects of self that others see but you do not.
Stage 2

Awareness of the need to improve		Conscious Incompetence

Aware of the lack of skill and need to learn it.		Open Area (Known to self and others)

Aspects of self that are known and shared.
Stage 3

Effort to improve is known internally but may not be visible to others		Conscious Competence

Learning and practising the skill with conscious effort.		Hidden Area (Known to self, Unknown to others)

Aspects of self that you know but others do not.
Stage 4

Skill becomes second nature; internal processes are automatic and not always visible (or understood)		Unconscious Competence

Mastery of the skill, performed without conscious thought.		Unknown Area (Unknown to self and others)

Aspects of self that neither you nor others are aware of.

It’s not a perfect fit between the Four Stages of Competence model and the Johari Window, but there’s enough of an overlap for me to mentally file it in a similar place.

Application to Systems Thinking

Applying the Four Stages of Competence to systems thinking highlights the progression individuals undergo in mastering this complex discipline. Initially, one might not recognise the need for systems thinking skills, but through structured learning and feedback, awareness grows, marking the shift to conscious incompetence. As students engage with concepts and tools, such as those offered in my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice, they enter conscious competence, where deliberate practice and application in real-world scenarios become essential.

Ultimately, with extensive experience and reflection, systems thinking becomes second nature, allowing practitioners to seamlessly integrate these skills into their professional and personal contexts. This journey highlights the importance of tailored support at each stage, ensuring that systems thinking principles are internalised and effectively used to address complex problems.

References

TB871: Supporting the development of others

Posted on by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category. 

Understanding how people learn is a complex business. As an educator, though, it’s a crucial underpinning to be able to do your job. Learners can progress through various stages of cognitive and ethical development, with one model presented in the module materials as Knefelkamp’s Four Development Instructional Variables (The Open University, 2020).

Knefelkamp’s work was based on the work of William G. Perry, whose framework outlines a sequence of positions through which learners progress as they develop cognitively and ethically. These positions range from a simplistic, dualistic understanding of the world to a more complex, relativistic view where learners make commitments in a contextual world.

The key positions include:

  • Position 1: Basic Dualism: Absolute thinking, reliance on authorities.
  • Position 2: Multiplicity Pre-legitimate: Beginning to see multiple viewpoints.
  • Position 3: Multiplicity Legitimate but Subordinate: Recognizes multiple viewpoints but relies on authority for correctness.
  • Position 4: Multiplicity Legitimate: Accepts multiple viewpoints as legitimate.
  • Position 5: Relativism: Understands that knowledge is contextual and relative.
  • Positions 6-9: Commitment in Relativism: Integrates personal values with learning, making commitments in a relativistic world.

Knefelkamp’s four variables are, as far as I understand, Positions 2-5.

This struck me as being rather similar to the Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) Taxonomy developed by John Biggs and Kevin Collis, which I’ve used extensively in my career. In fact, I created the image below, which is used on the Wikipedia page for the topic.

Stepped bar graph of the SOLO Taxonomy displaying five stages of understanding from Prestructural to Extended Abstract.

The SOLO Taxonomy describes levels of increasing complexity in learners’ understanding. The taxonomy consists of five levels:

  • Pre-structural: Lack of understanding, irrelevant responses.
  • Uni-structural: Focus on one relevant aspect.
  • Multi-structural: Focus on several relevant aspects independently.
  • Relational: Integration of multiple aspects into a coherent whole.
  • Extended Abstract: Abstract and generalised understanding, application to new areas.

Both Perry’s framework and the SOLO taxonomy describe a developmental progression from simple, dualistic thinking to complex, integrated understanding. They emphasise the need to adjust educational strategies to the learner’s developmental stage, providing more structure and guidance at earlier stages and promoting independence and critical thinking at advanced stages.

Mapping Perry’s Framework to SOLO Taxonomy

Perry’s FrameworkSOLO TaxonomyCharacteristicsEducational Needs
Position 1: Basic DualismPre-structuralAbsolute thinking, reliance on authoritiesHigh structure, clear guidance, simple and direct feedback
Position 2: Multiplicity Pre-legitimateUni-structuralBeginning to see multiple viewpointsStructured support, introduction to diverse perspectives, controlled experiential learning
Position 3: Multiplicity Legitimate but SubordinateMulti-structuralRecognizes multiple viewpoints but relies on authority for correctnessMore information, additive learning, structured exploration
Position 4: Multiplicity LegitimateRelationalAccepts multiple viewpoints as legitimateModerate structure, encouragement of connections, diverse perspectives
Position 5: RelativismExtended AbstractUnderstands that knowledge is contextual and relativeLow structure, high autonomy, encouragement of abstract thinking, real-world applications
Positions 6-9: Commitment in RelativismExtended AbstractIntegrates personal values with learning, making commitments in a relativistic worldMinimal structure, high autonomy, diverse and abstract concepts, facilitation of deep personal engagement

Any kind of well-researched developmental framework can help educators design effective learning experiences that cater to the needs of learners at different stages. By aligning educational strategies with the developmental levels described by Perry and the SOLO Taxonomy, educators can better support the cognitive and ethical growth of their students. I think I prefer SOLO, because I’m more familiar with it, but I’m interested in further exploring the ethical dimension of Perry’s framework.

References

TB871: Please let me be the last thing I have to write on learning styles

Posted on by Doug Belshaw

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category. 

A blurry photo of a car driving down a highway. The red lights have made weird shapes, which could be interpreted in different ways.

As part of this module, we’re directed to look at learning styles. As someone was introduced to them a bit over-enthusiastically during my teacher training, I’ve been skeptical about them my entire career.

However, Stephen Downes, someone for whom I have immense respect, has a more nuanced position. He’s mentioned them many times over the years, with my understanding of his basic position coming from a post 15 years ago in which he stated:

Indeed, the traditional approach’s inability to deal with learning styles is an argument in favour of alternative, learner-directed, approaches in which individual learners can (intuitively) adapt their content and presentation selections to their own preferred learning modalitie, accomodating [sic] their abilities and preferences, or challenging them, as the case may be. (Downes, 2009)

This is why, although I would reject the blunt categorisation of putting learners into particular boxes such as ‘visual’, ‘auditory’ or ‘kinaesthetic’ it is useful for people to know how — at what times and which situations — they prefer to learn.

The module materials directed me to a ‘internal representation questionnaire’ which resulted in the following quite unhelpful result. What am I supposed to do with this?

A table labelled Visual (8), Auditory (4), and Kinaesthetic (7) giving Total (20)

Given that I listen to podcasts on a daily basis where I learn a great deal of things, this feels a bit like horoscopes. As does, to be perfectly honest, the learning styles outlined by Honey & Mumford (1982) and which a client used on a project I worked on a couple of years ago (The Open University, 2020).

  • Activists: Fully engage in new experiences, thrive on challenges, and prefer brainstorming and short-term activities.
  • Reflectors: Observe and ponder experiences from multiple perspectives, collecting thorough data before concluding.
  • Theorists: Integrate observations into logical theories, seeking coherence, rationality, and perfection.
  • Pragmatists: Try out practical ideas and techniques quickly, seeking effective and efficient solutions.

That’s fine, but as I said in my post about Belbin and Six Thinking Hats, we need to understand that learners play a role in any given situation. I am not, for example, always and forever more a ‘Reflector’.

We can learn a lot from user research as part of product design here, where it’s common to talk about, for example, “as a learner spending time commuting to and from my job on the subway, I want to be able to learn while navigating a crowded environment.” That may or may not mean that the answer is auditory. It might be flashcards. The point is that context is important. Yes, learners have preferences, but they’re contextual.

From a systems thinking perspective, I think the point of all this is to help us realise that, hey, everyone’s different and so will take a different view on things. They also prefer to describe stuff and receive information in different ways. But as an educator at heart, and someone who’s considered these things over the majority of my career to date, that’s not exactly a revelation.

As I wrote a few years ago, I learn best through frustration; if I care about something, I’ll want to find out more:

Sometimes there’s a perfect YouTube video to watch or article to read, but more often than not it’s a random post on a forum somewhere, or a Reddit comment, or social media post in the middle of a thread. (Belshaw, 2020)

Context is everything, which is why when working with clients it’s good to have a toolbox of approaches. No model is ‘true’ — they’re just either more or less useful in the way of belief. (Spoken as a true Pragmatist!)

References

  • Belshaw, D. (2020) ‘Learning through frustration’, Open Thinkering, 7 October. Available at: https://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2020/10/07/learning-through-frustration/ (Accessed: 25 July 2024).CloseDeleteEdit
  • Downes, S. (2009). ‘Do Learning Styles Exist?’. OLDaily [Online]. Available at: https://www.downes.ca/post/48662 (Accessed: 25 July 2024).
  • The Open University (2020) ‘Descriptions of learning styles’, TB871 Block 4 People stream [Online]. Available at https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=2261551 (Accessed 25 July 2024).

Image: Danielle-Claude Bélanger

css.php