Mirror, Mirror in the Cloud

It’s been a while since something dramatically altered the way I think about social media, so I figured this insight warranted a post:

During the launch of the #domosocial experiment, Josh (our undeniably brilliant CEO) made a pretty big deal of an ex post facto pardon for an employee who’d challenged one of his tweets.

And it bothered me.

My colleagues tried to explain that Twitter simply wasn’t the right forum for a challenge like that, which just irked me more because for me, social media is the perfect forum for “spirited debate.”

Then suddenly, I got it!

When you interact with people on social platforms, you do it on their terms.

Listen for a while. Try to understand the value they’re looking for from social media. And then try to give it to them.

It’s not pandering. You don’t have to become some sort of social chameleon. This is really just another example of the subtle mirroring that makes so many aspects of life easier (and more successful).

So, by all means, challenge and debate with the theorists. Send personal messages to the socialites. Pass interesting news to the information sponges. Sincerely compliment the promoters. Respond to the conversationalists. And don’t call out the brand-conscious CEOs.

Advertisements

Ugly Constructivism

Read an article for Learning Theory the other day that explored the “many faces of constructivism” — the classic good, bad and ugly. Perhaps tellingly, it was Phillips’ “ugly” face that stuck with me. He says:

“As in all living religions, constructivism has many sects–each of which harbors some distrust of its rivals. This descent into sectarianism, and the accompanying growth in distrust of nonbelievers, is probably the fate of all large-scale movements inspired by interesting ideas.”

Wow. No one could deny that large-scale movements inspired by interesting ideas do have a striking tendency to schism; feminism…environmentalism…the civil rights movement. And each of the resulting factions arguably believes itself to be the true guardian of the interesting idea, and the others to be [to some degree or another] apostate from it.

I guess my question is; what is the alternative? Continue reading

Becoming Skinner

I’ve been thinking lately about the available roles in the intellectual community, and my relative capacity and inclination to fill the same. To put it more concisely, I’ve been debating whether or not I’d want to be a “Skinner.” In the short term, of course that’s exactly what you’d want to be—a leading researcher in the field, making discoveries, laying down theory, breaking ground and more than breaking even. But, though every Psychology of Learning class in every university in the country covers him, his pure mechanism approach to human behavior is all but laughed at today. So, in the long term being a Skinner looks like a decided disadvantage.

Continue reading

The Demands of Agentive Psychology

I had to laugh. Writing the title to this post, I found myself chuckling: “And you wonder why nobody reads the blog anymore…” Somehow stories of butchering pigs and flirting with soccer players in Paraguay just have more appeal than learning theory or political positing. Go figure.

A fascinating discussion with Richard Williams in our Learning Theory class finally helped solidify what is really required to embrace agentive psychology, to make the shift from an acquisitional model of learning to a participatory model–you’ve got to speak in verbs instead of nouns.

Continue reading

Take the Next Step

Kristen E. Cox [2008 Distinguished Alumni for the BYU School of Education] has been appointed to a national committee by President Bush, headed the Utah Department of Workforce Services and lost a gubernatorial election. She’s a vibrant, engaging woman—disarmingly confident in front of a crowd. She’s been an educator, a politician, an advocate and is currently raising both a teen and a toddler. Oh, yeah, and she’s blind.

Continue reading

Rejecting Behaviorism… Again.

This week [we seem to do this at the beginning of every semester in my field of study] we revisited the theoretical foundations of instructional design; a history steeped in dog drool and puctuated by the tap-tap-tap of a million tiny levers and the *clink* of food pellets dropping onto the floors of a million shiny metal cages.

I suppose its a bit of an oversimplification to reduce all of behaviorism to those two rather poignant images, but only a bit. Every time we take this stroll down memory lane and I read things like this: “How do we present students with the right stimuli on which to focus their attention and mental effort so they will acquire important skills? That is the central problem of instruction.” I find myself standing mentally agape, and probably more than a little judgmental.

“The central concern of instrucation!?–maybe the central concern of dog-training, but certainly not the central concern of my interactions with another human being!” I think.

Reading Skinner’s “Why We Need Teaching Machines” this semester probably didn’t help that attitude.

  • In arguing against the use of multiple-choice assessments [a position I whole-heartedly support, by the way] Skinner claims; “engaging in almost any of the …behaviors which are the main concern of education, the student is to generate responses. He may generate and reject, but only rarely will be called on to generate a set of responses from which he must then make a choice.” Is it just me or does that sound an awful lot like the process of creative problem-solving…arguably one of the most useful/valuable skills a student can gain from his/her education?!
  • Skinner claims it is a simple yet profound misunderstanding that errors are essential or even beneficial to the learning process. “When material is carefully programmed,” he claims “both subhuman and human subjects can learn while making few errors or none at all.” Guess we better find some way to “carefully program” the real world so that these students who’ve learned without ever making a mistake don’t end up suicidal inside a week.
  • Finally, after describing a machine that would teach “subjects” to match correspondences of color, shape, sizes etc., Skinner affirms, “If devices similar to these were available in our nursery schools and kingergartens, our children would be fall more skillful in dealing with their environments. They would be more productive in their work, more sensitive to art and music, better at sports, and so on. They would lead more effective lives.” Except, of course, for the minor detail that they would be socially dysfunctional automatons with little sense of their individual identity or agentive potential, let alone the creativity or confidence to engage it!

Whew.

At some point, often in the midst of a mental tirade, I am forced to admit that some really smart people believed this stuff, devoted their lives to it. And that these ideas contributed to critical advances in the way we conceptualize teaching and learning. And that someday in the not-too-terribly-distant future, someone may well be looking and the thoughts and theories I’m touting today and wondered how any sentient being could have convinced themselves the world worked that way.

In the final analysis, though, I’m still rejecting behaviorism…again.