Open Thinkering

Menu

Tag: learning

TB871: Supporting the development of others

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

Whisky and Wisdom

Illustration in a woodcut style depicting a serene, mountainous landscape with rolling hills and varying elevations. A visible trail winds through the hills, and a small group of stylized people are seen walking along it, engaging in conversation. A whisky bottle and glass rest on a rock in the foreground, subtly included as a reference point. The palette features soft, natural tones like greens, browns, and greys, creating a tranquil atmosphere ideal for contemplation. The sky has gentle cloud patterns, adding to the peaceful setting

This week, Derek Sivers published a post entitled Walk and Talk, while Rich Bartlett posted Running a local lodge for your internet friends. Both of them encompass a similar theme: bringing people together to live alongside one another temporarily, creating space for serendipitous conversation and learning.

Derek walked 100km over seven days in Thailand with Liz Danzico, Kevin Kelly, Jason Kottke, Craig Mod and a few others. They naturally broke into small groups to talk while walking the trail. In the evening, the conversation over each dinner was on a topic chosen by one of the walkers, for example Where do you call home? And why?

It sounds like an amazing experience, and one that I personally would slightly prefer to Rich’s experiment in communal living. That’s mainly because I need something to do with myself during all of my waking hours and find unstructured time difficult. I always have done. So walking, which is a long-form activity and topic of conversation, is perfect for me.

What I appreciate about Rich’s post is his giving a peek behind the scenes to show how the economics work. If I was going to organise something like this, it would be based around a walk; perhaps part of Hadrian’s Wall. In fact, these posts are perfectly timed, as I’m going walking with Aaron tomorrow and last time we met we discussed how awesome it would be to invite people for some ‘Whisky and Wisdom’ walks. The whisky would be provided by us, and the wisdom by the group.

I don’t think there’s any ‘perfect’ gathering, and the two approaches — Walk and Talk, and Local Lodge — (quite rightly) reflect the preferences of the organiser. The structure of events is what includes or excludes people, so I guess you need to ensure you’re intentionally including the right people and not unintentionally excluding them. A simple example of this is location. For example, Rich points out that if they had rented a place north of the Pyrenees, more guests would take the train instead of flying. I guess some people might in fact refuse to come if they have to take a flight.

Why do this kind of thing? It’s all about increasing your serendipity surface, and allowing unexpected things to happen. All of the walkers linked above who have written about their experience in Thailand have mentioned the dog that accompanied them for 70km and who they eventually took to the vet. They really formed a bond with the animal, yet this couldn’t have been something that they planned for ahead of time.

This post is mainly me thinking out loud. I’d usually put this kind of thing over at Thought Shrapnel, but I’ve shut up shop there until the new year! More (perhaps) after talking with Aaron tomorrow, and having a think over Christmas…


Image: DALL-E 3

Coda: after writing this, and just before hitting publish, I came across a post by Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin about Zuzalu, an experiment that aiming to “create a pop-up mini-city that houses two hundred people, and lasts for two whole months”. It sounds like it was more successful than the crypto cruise ship, at least 😂

TB872: The people of the PFMS heuristic

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 DALL-E 3 created abstract image, conceptualizing the PFMS heuristic in a collaborative learning context, is now available. It visually represents the integration and interaction of the four elements of the PFMS heuristic: Practitioners, Framework of Ideas, Methods, and Situations of Concern, within a vibrant and dynamic setting.

As I’ve explained in a previous post, the PFMS heuristic is at the core of the TB872 module I’m currently studying:

Practitioners (P) Which other practitioners do you work with?
Framework of ideas (F) What ideas are informing your practice? Do you have a shared set of ideas or are you all working with different ideas? Are there particular ideas you have heard about that you would like to explore further?
Methods (M) What methods and tools are you using?
Situations of concern (S) Do you have a shared situation of concern? If so, what is it?

The next activity on my list is to fill in what seems like a straightforward 2×2 table, based on the work of De Laat and Simons (2002). The idea, I think, is to introduce the idea of social learning to those who are perhaps only really conceptualise the kind of individual learning done on traditional university undergraduate courses.

Outcomes
ProcessesIndividualCollective
IndividualIndividual learningIndividual learning processes with collective outcomes
CollectiveLearning in social interactionCollective learning

Taking both the PFMS model and the table together, it’s clear that in my day-to-day work through the co-op of which I’m a founding member, I engage in all four of the kinds of learning:

  • Individual learning: all knowledge and belief is contextual and theory-laden, so much of what I learn is based on my own personal experience, observation, and internal reflection. For example, I might learn what to say or not say to a colleague in a given situation. Or I might find out about something from a client who works in a slightly different way to me.
  • Individual learning processes with collective outcomes: although learning often occurs at an individual level, the knowledge or skills we acquire can contribute to a larger group’s collective goal. For example, we can pool the expertise we have as a cooperative, and the experience for clients is greater than if they engaged us as individual consultants. In this quadrant, there’s a symbiotic relationship between personal development and collective advancement.
  • Learning in social interaction: I’d say about half of my working week is spent ‘co-working’ with members and collaborators of the co-op. As such, learning happens through these interactions by sharing, discussing, and negotiating knowledge. This happens within Communities of Practice (CoP) we’re part of but WAO itself is a CoP, and a place for learning and development as well as for doing business.
  • Collective learning: although individual people learn, so do groups, communities and organisations. This goes beyond the simple aggregation of individual learning experience to include the creation of new knowledge through collective effort. To achieve this, there needs to be shared goals, co-creation of knowledge, and mutual engagement. In my working week, this happens most often through networks of co-ops we’re part of (e.g. workers.coop) and CoPs (e.g. ORE).

I’ve been working on the Open Recognition Toolkit this week, and during our working group call we discussed the Plane of Recognition we’re using on this page. Although, like De Laat and Simons’ grid, it involves quadrants, what’s really happening is a continuum. In the former case it’s from traditional, formal recognition to non-traditional, non-formal recognition. In the latter, it’s a continuum of learning that mvoes from the individual to the collective, emphasising the connections between personal knowledge acquisition and social, collaboration knowledge creation.

So, in my Situation (S), the Practitioners (P) I’m working with are primarily Laura, and then on few with John and Anne. In the past there have been other members and collaborators involved, too. The Framework of Ideas (F) that we implement has been negotiated over time, but was helped by us all working together for a few years at the Mozilla Foundation. At our monthly co-op days, we reflect on different aspects of our work together, for example creating pages such as Spirit of WAO which allow us to say together things like:

We believe in:

  • Placing ourselves and our work in historical and social contexts so that we can make thoughtful decisions about our behaviours and mindsets.
  • Seeing ourselves as part of nature not the rulers of it and acknowledging that there is a climate emergency. We are conscious of the lost lessons and spirit of the indigenous and strive for climate justice.
  • Sharing resources to help combat prejudice wherever we see it (including, but not limited to: racism, sexism, ageism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and hostility relating to education or socio-economic status).

In terms of our methods (M) we try and make these as explicit as possible. So we’re currently using software tools such as Trello, Google Docs, and Whimsical. But we’ve got a Learn with WAO site where we share tools and approaches, which include the templates we use with clients on a range of activities. These are all Creative Commons licensed, as we walk the talk of openness.


In considering the Situations (S) of concern, our work at the co-op often revolves around diverse and sometimes complex projects. Each project brings its own set of challenges and opportunities for learning. Returning to my earlier example of the Open Recognition Toolkit, there were some new things we had to learn about using MediaWiki, even though it’s a tool we’ve used before. Likewise, there was a time when I had to send a somewhat awkward, but necessary, email, to a contributor who was engaging in a way that wasn’t entirely pro-social. As such, the project has required not individual learning but also collective effort to bring together different expertise and perspectives.

A really interesting aspect of thinking through my practice using the PFMS heuristic is how it enables a fluid transition between individual and collective learning processes. For example, I often find that my own, individual, learning about Open Source technologies contributes significantly to the collective knowledge base of the group.

Social learning is essentially learning in practice. It’s not just about exchanging information, but full-bandwidth collaborative experience that inform and shape both our understanding and approaches to work. For example, I’ve seen many instances when people have taken things that they’ve seen us used (and which we learned from others), and then use them in their own practice. Sometimes they even verbalise it: “Oh, I’m going to steal that!”. This encourages a culture of continuous learning and adaptation, which is important in any kind of work environment.


I’m part of the Member Learning group of workers.coop, and in a meeting this week I was trying to explain the value of regular community calls. I was trying to get across the point that the kind of learning we want to foster in the network is not a series of transactional experiences, but rather building a constituency of people who are learning and growing together. It’s not something confined to formal training sessions or workshops. Instead, it’s embedded in our interactions, projects, and shared culture.

As I get further into the TB872 module, I am increasingly appreciative of the way that WAO works internally, with clients, and with other cooperatives. We’ve essentially set up a learning organisation. What’s useful to me is that the PFMS heuristic provides a really valuable lens through which to view and understand these processes, and I’m glad I’m forcing myself to blog all of this so that I can come back to it later!


Image: DALL-E 3 (it reminds me somewhat of a Doom painting you might find on the wall of a medieval church!)

css.php