Open Thinkering

Menu

Tag: systems thinking

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

TB871: Personality and causal responsibility

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. 

Ollie Watkins celebrates after scoring for England against the Netherlands.

As a long-suffering fan of Sunderland AFC and the England football teams, I’ve found myself experiencing both highs and lows on the rollercoaster journey of failure (more failure) and success. After the recent EURO football tournament, in which England were beaten by Spain in the final, manager Gareth Southgate resigned. But I want to reflect on the match before that, when Southgate made two crucial substitutions in the semi-final against the Netherlands. His decisions during the tournament sparked a lot of debate, and so I think it’s a good case study for understanding different perspectives on causality and success.

In the last few minutes of the semi-final, Southgate made a bold move by substituting onto the pitch Cole Palmer and Ollie Watkins. With the clock ticking down, Palmer, known for his creativity, passed to the pacey Watkins, who scored the decisive goal in the 90th minute. This meant England got into the final, in keeping with Southgate’s impressive record as manager. This is despite the criticism he has faced for his conservative approach and ‘delayed’ substitutions. At that point, the substitutions were seen as tactically brilliant.

Initially, it’s tempting to attribute the triumph solely to Southgate’s strategic ability. His timely decision to introduce fresh legs appeared to be the masterstroke that clinched the match. This view aligns with the analytical reasoning style, which focuses on individual actions and their immediate outcomes.

However, reflecting on the match from a broader perspective reveals a more complex picture. The success wasn’t merely a result of Southgate’s substitutions but also a culmination of several contextual factors. The team’s rigorous training sessions, designed to maintain peak physical condition and mental resilience, played a significant role. Additionally, the supportive environment created by the coaching staff and the sports psychologists helped boost the players’ morale and readiness. This was something that took years to build.

Former England internationals have commented on the squad’s togetherness under Southgate’s management. In the past, players from different club teams often kept to themselves, rarely mixing off the pitch, and this lack of unity was seen as a hindrance to the team’s success. Under Southgate, however, there has been a noticeable shift towards a more cohesive and supportive environment. Players now form strong bonds regardless of their club affiliations, leading to a spirit of unity and collective effort.

In addition, Southgate’s approach to substitutions has actually been particularly effective. Instead of viewing substitutions as a sign of being ‘snubbed’, players now understand their defined roles and how they contribute to the overall strategy. This clear communication and role definition have ensured that substitutes are ready to make impactful contributions when called upon, as shown by Palmer and Watkins’ game-changing involvement.

It’s also important to note that the Dutch defence was visibly fatigued in the closing stages, providing an opportune moment for Palmer and Watkins to exploit. The combined efforts of the entire team, the strategic preparation, and the circumstantial advantage of facing a worn-out opposition were all crucial elements in securing the win.

As a result, reviewing this episode through a contextual lens enhances my appreciation of the multifaceted nature of football success. It highlights that while individual brilliance, such as Southgate’s tactical decisions, can be significant, it is often supported by a web of contributing factors. Recognising this interconnectedness offers a richer understanding of how victories are achieved.

It’s also worth noting Southgate’s journey from player to manager. As a former defender, he famously missed a penalty in the semi-final of Euro 96 against Germany, a moment that saw England exit the tournament on home soil. This personal history of highs and lows on the pitch undoubtedly shapes his approach to management, instilling in him a resilience and a deep understanding of the pressures faced by his players. He wants success, but he’s willing to take criticism to achieve it.

For a football fan, this exercise in shifting perspectives is both challenging and enlightening. It reminds us that the beautiful game is not just about star players and headline-making decisions but also about the unseen efforts and collective spirit that drive a team forward. By appreciating the broader context, we can gain deeper insights into the game we love and the many elements that contribute to those unforgettable moments on the pitch.

css.php