Joe's Jottings
Jottings Number 66, Reply A, by David Straker, Mary Jordan, Nancy Levitt, and Grant Head
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 96 16:58:19 -0800
Joe, Really excellent jotting!! And so timely. Just this week, we ran the process management class we've been developing over the past year. And guess which bits they liked? The simulations and breakouts. And the bits they criticised? The longer classroom slide sessions. Ouch: I worked so *hard* over those slides... ;-( We'd made it 50/50 talk/do, but are now planning to make it more like 40/60, with even more participation. And I'll be using your jottings in the review, especially BIT, also the Shulman model. Many thanks! Dave Straker (UK Sales Region)
Before I print off this last jottings I wanted to get your permission to share it with a source outside of HP. (Note form Joe: I'm happy to have the jottings shared with anyone, inside or outside of HP.) I would like to give it to the principal at my son's high school. Our school board recently approved, with much discussion both pro and con, to go to the 4 period day. This now means each class will be ~85 minutes in length and that some teachers will need to make radical change within their teaching methodologies - i.e.. no more 50 minute lectures with their back to the student as their furiously scribble on the white board. They will actually have to turn around and look them in the eye, for if they don't when they do turn around the desks may be empty. This may sound harsh, but I am a teacher by profession. I was a "soft contract" teacher - doing long term substitute jobs in the secondary level social sciences - and I loved it - unfortunately I could not legally coach athletic events - not certified and back in the 70's this is what they were short on with the new requirements of providing equal sport activities for girls. So, with a family to help support I opted to come to work for HP - and did teach internally - computer basics. I would go back in a heart beat if I wasn't faced with economic choices of today - college costs, etc. My husband and I made a radical change in our lives - I work outside the home and he maintains it. The reason I am interested in this article is it strongly points out the need for group activities. Many of the arguments that parents used against the 4 period day was that teachers would make kids work in groups and my child doesn't like it. Too many times I have heard our schools are not teaching the right stuff, our kids don't know everything they need to know. I don't want my children to learn "everything" in school - their brains will get fried. I want them to learn problem solving skills, research techniques and then how to apply it, explain it, and share it. We need to have fundamentals to build upon: math, grammar, spelling, reading, - but do they need to know every date of every event that has occurred since the beginning of time (and my actual degree was in history). People often asked me where did I learn all this stuff about computers when I was teaching PC classes. When I was in college no such programs existed for the average student, nor were we encouraged to take computer type courses - why would a history teacher need a computer class. I tell them I taught myself and went back to college. By applying basic learning techniques: read, do, and examine I was able to learn and proceed ahead. My current role with in the Test & Measurement Org.IT involves leading the project to implement NT servers for our factory sites. Did I ever think I would be doing this back in the 70's when I was in college or leading group discussions in my high school psychology classes - no way. A good foundation can sustain years, decades of building upon. Mary Jordan
Joe .. I share your jottings with my department heads in Belmont .. here's a reply from Dan Vanderpriem, Dir of Planning and Community Development. Nancy (Note from Joe: Nancy Levitt is Mayor of Belmont, CA.)
I read this article that you fowarded and came to a snap jucgement on the Keller technique that later showed up in the article - That is, 'how well would this technique work on more complicated and intricate subjects such as theory?'. Then I read shulman's multi-step process and found it better suited to theory, and complicated subjects such as the social history, aesthetics, art, etc. It also addresses working with people and alienation that the Keller technique does not. The Keller BIT technique, I agree, would be better suited to fragmentable subjects such as computer language, math, grammar. Which technique would be better for the subjects falling in between such as rhetoric, macro economics, etc, I am not sure. I am afraid that the Keller technique would so fragment the subject matter that the overall picture might be hard to communicate to students. I think that the Keller technique is somewhat influenced by the "sound bite (or BIT)" mentality that we are bombarded with - that information must be packaged in "news Mc Nuggets" to keep our attention. I am afraid it would not address one key learing tool, that being CONCENTRATION!. What ever happended to concentration anyway? Let's see where were we.... Anyway, my conclusion is to match the technique to the subject matter, or use the Shulman technique. One last thought - I am afraid that the Keller BIT approach with the stoppage at 5 minutes intervals would be too slow a learning process for more gifted students. The Keller process seems more aligned with the current teching philosophy of bringing each student along at the same pace (basically the same pace as the slowest student), where as the Shulman theory would be more stimulating for the faster learner. =========================================================================== I'm a passionate champion of Shulman's collaboration and community principles and I also see them as having the most cultural obstacles to implementation. I have personally experienced effective teamwork in which the whole is clearly and measurably greater than the sum of the parts -- high morale teams in which productivity greatly exceeded the norm and in which quality exceeded the norm by orders of magnitude. (See for instance, my paper in the HP Journal, June 1994, p 40; or Jennie Hollis' paper in the 1996 Project Management Conference entitled Establishing a Peer Review Process for Work-Products.) But efforts to reachieve same in other environments have been frustrating. I see two main obstacles. One is counterculture, and the other is counterintuitive. You described the counterculture problem. We are taught NOT to collaborate. But I think psychology is more influential than poor training. The accomplishment of something without collaboration is fulfilling. HP goes out of its way to hire the best and the brightest. These are precisely the people who have a long history of accomplishing superior things totally on their own. They do not WANT to collaborate. That's one of the reasons Stanford now prefers a 3.6 GPA to a 4.0 if the former is a more well-rounded person as demonstrated by extracurricular community or political involvement. Their studies show these people will be more successful and will contribute more to society and are therefore more deserving of a Stanford education. Also, psychological principles prevent collaboration from happening spontaneously. This is illustrated by the fact that I am irritated every time I am in a class or a meeting in which we are suddenly organized into "work groups." I know that is best, but I would choose to avoid it, if given the choice. I should not be allowed to make that choice -- management by objective or not. And then, what will it benefit me to expend precious time on someone else's project? That's the counterintuitive problem. Let's face it, collaboration requires involvement in the community of other people. That means I have to understand and contribute to efforts for which I am not responsible. I have my own stuff to do. And though studies show that such collaboration would make all projects in the team execute more quickly and reliably -- including mine -- this is not compelling. The studies never apply to my team or any other team I've seen because we are all doing different things than were done in the studies. (We know this intuitively whether or not we've read the studies.) The fruits of good collaboration and community are compelling. How do we train, organize, and/or consequent-manage around these obstacles? The benefits of doing so would be dramatic. Grant Head
....................................................................... TO: PODOLSKY_JOE/HP-PaloAlto_om4@opnmail2