News > Local News
Pontiac alternative high school may close
Wednesday, November 19, 2008 11:35 AM EST
By DIANA DILLABER MURRAYOf The Oakland Press
The city’s alternative high school may be shut down in January as part of the restructuring of Pontiac’s school district. Board Vice President Gill Garrett pushed for the closing of the Pontiac Alternative Leadership Academy at Bethune school at the end of this semester because it is over budget at a time when the district is facing a $10 million deficit. And trustees say it is not operating the way the board intended.
Trustees approved opening and renaming the alternative school in 2007 because they were hopeful a new plan by a community committee would make it more successful.Garrett’s proposal to close Bethune came after a financial report by Deputy Superintendent Felix Chow indicated the school is $630,000 over its $2 million budget.
Garrett and Trustee Robert Bass pointed out the board expected to spend $900,000 on the alternative program, not $2 million. They said the expenditures continued to grow without the board’s knowledge.“I am frustrated with dealing with this,” Garrett said. “Starting with January, I propose not having the program. We are spending $2 million and not producing anything. I want to find out what we spent and cut our losses.”
Trustee Christopher Northcross made a point to note the board had gone against the administration’s recommendation when it kept the school open at a time when it had no principal and the district was under financial stress. Northcross said if the board had adjusted the budget more than once last school year, they would have been aware that expenditures were greater than planned.“I agree with Mr. Garrett that every dollar spent in the building takes money from students,” Northcross concluded.
Bass said he still feels comfortable that the board did not close Bethune last school year.“Our heart and mind and focus was in the right place. I get tired of hearing we made a mistake. We didn’t make a mistake. When I stuck my neck out for that school it was because I thought it could be successful.“With our calculations, we thought the school would be self supporting with adult education and special education funds,” Bass said.“We did everything we could to control (operations) without micromanaging. When (expenditures were) increasing we weren’t getting reports and we didn’t get them when we asked.“We went through great pains for that school. It took awhile to get a principal. Now there are mostly substitutes rather than certified teachers,” Bass added.
Trustee Alma Bradley-Pettress agreed with Bass.“We put a lot of plans in place that were not adhered to. We spent a lot of time on that. We were doing our best for the children at Bethune.“We recognize Bethune had some challenges and we addressed the challenges. At this time, I agree with Mr. Garrett. We need to meet and have a discussion” (on closing the school), Bradley-Pettress said.
Even Mattie McKinney Hatchett, a county commissioner and retired educator who fought to keep the alternative school open, said in an interview Tuesday that she agrees the school should be temporarily closed. Hatchett filled in as principal in an effort to get the new design under way until a principal was hired later in the school year.“They need to shut it down and redesign it. I think it needs to be closed down temporarily, but I would fight just as hard for reopening,” Hatchett said.“It could be an exemplary school, a place people where would want to come. We definitely have a student population that needs an alternative program. And we also need to revisit the teen mom alternative program. Even that may need to be redesigned before it is reopened.”
Hatchett said a group that included herself and officials from Oakland University and Oakland Community College and Oakland Schools had been meeting to come up with a good plan for the school, all coordinated by former Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum Jesse Petway, who retired this year.She would like to see that group come together again. The school needs some latitude from the teachers union and some career-directed curriculum for students not going to college, she suggested.“We need to think out of the box and we need to make a desirable school,” said Hatchett, who wants to be involved in the designing process.
If the alternative school opens again, it is likely it will be under a new design and not be in a separate school. The district is in the process of closing some of the 20 buildings that provide classrooms for 20,000 students, almost three times the 6,700 students enrolled now.Hatchett pointed out that, at one time, the alternative high school program had been at Northern High School and another time at Central High School, as well as at Perdue and Bethune.
Contact staff writer Diana Dillaber Murray at (248) 745-4638 or diana.dillaber@oakpress.com
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Informs Our Understanding (And Changes the Conversation to the URGENCY of the EMERGENCY)
Pontiac schools project $10M deficit, notify state
Tuesday, November 11, 2008 3:14 PM EST
By DIANA DILLABER MURRAYOf The Oakland Press
Pontiac school officials are projecting a $10 million deficit, making it mandatory for the district to submit a deficit reduction plan to the state.
Acting Superintendent Linda Paramore notified Gov. Jennifer Granholm and other state officials of the district’s dire financial situation Monday after meeting with outside auditors Friday.
Paramore notified board members in a letter Friday.
“Simply put, an enrollment decline by over 15 percent in just the last 12 months and by over 22 percent in the last 24 months has created an approximate $16 million revenue reduction in two years and a resulting financial challenge that cannot be overcome by the end of the current fiscal year,” Paramore wrote in a letter to the Board of Education.
In addition, school officials fear the state may reduce state aid to schools by as much as $100 to $200 per student because of the poor economy.Closing buildings — possibly as many as 13 — and the merging of Pontiac Northern and Central high schools will likely be part of the plan for next year.
The district is now operating 20 buildings for a student population that has shrunk to 6,700 kindergarten through 12th-graders plus 400 4-yearolds at a new preschool academy in the former Frost Elementary.In her letter, Paramore said management anticipates a further loss of students before the end of this school year.
The Board of Education and Paramore already had pulled together an advisory committee and scheduled a series of public forums to gather input from the community on making cuts.
The first forum was Nov. 5.But now that the deficit is official, the district is required by state law to come up with a deficit elimination plan to avoid a violation of the Uniform Budget Act, which could occur as early as April or May, Paramore said.
Paramore is recommending the plan be submitted to the Michigan Department of Education no later than Feb. 1, “not before that because we still believe that the meetings with the public are key and we have to get their input,” Paramore said.
The advisory committee will help school officials design the deficit reduction plan, she said.Once approved by the state, the district would be obligated to follow the plan until the budget is balanced.
“Even with substantial expenditure reduction actions in the next two months, a very significant deficit fund balance of approximately $10 million will occur as of June 30, 2009 and the district would therefore be unable to comply with the Uniform Budget Act,” Paramore said in a letter to trustees.
Paramore is recommending a plan that would eliminate the difference between revenue and expenditures by June 30, 2011.Although the closing of schools will be difficult for the community, Paramore said the district can come out of the process with improved educational programs for students.
“Curriculum and programs drive everything. It has been a long time since they were put first.”
This year, sixth-graders were put back in elementary schools to help their success in school, a pre-school academy was opened and a law academy was opened in one of the high schools.
School officials are hoping to offer such things as magnet middle schools and smaller themed high schools within a large high school, all to increase student achievement and retain students.
The acting superintendent said officials have been trying to get the severity of the district’s financial problems to the public and involve them in the solution, but she was disappointed only 50 people turned out for the first forum last week.
That number included only a handful of parents and students.
Auditors were to give their report at a Monday night board meeting.
FYIThe next three forums are scheduled for 6 to 8 p.m. Nov. 18 at Pontiac Central High School, 300 W. Huron; 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. Dec. 6 at Whitmer Human Resource Center, 60 Parkhurst in the city-school complex off Auburn Road at Woodward northbound; and 6 to 8 p.m. Jan. 13 at WHRC.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Let us HEAR Your Voice
WHAT do YOU THINK?
“It takes 20 years for a new idea to become an overnight success.” This quote, which I heard years ago from Paul Saffo of the Institute of the Future, is still one of my favorites.
For early adopters and industry watchers alike, the steps towards adoption of a new technology or approach often seem painfully slow. The journey from the first 300-baud dial-up modems to today’s high-bandwith connections, from monochromatic text-only screens to media-rich digital environments took approximately 20 years – years during which skeptics challenged both the feasibility and the wisdom of putting such “extravagant” and “unnecessary” tools into the hands of young people.
Of course, now that Internet browsers, search engines, MP3 players and a variety of other handheld devices, wiki encyclopedias, streaming video, blogging, and social networking are a widespread reality, it’s becoming hard to remember a time when they were not a part of our lives. That’s because, as Malcolm Gladwell puts in his book by the same name, we’ve passed “the tipping point” – the "moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point … at which the momentum for change becomes unstoppable.”
Are we nearing that tipping point for one-to-one technology? Colleges and universities have certainly reached – and passed – that point by now; students are expected to have daily access to computers and the Internet in order to register for classes, pick up and turn in assignments, conduct research, communicate with professors and classmates, and much more. And many educators feel that K-12 schools are not far behind.
Do you agree? That’s the question we are asking in this month’s Quick Poll. And it’s one of the many questions that we address as we talk to districts across the country and look at data from sources such as America’s Digital Schools 2008.
As Tom Greaves, co-author of the ADS report, will explain in our November 18th webinar, “1:1 implementations are now relatively widespread. With 27.1% of districts reporting their involvement in 1:1 computing [and 13.2% more planning to implement 1:1 in the next two years] this trend has moved into the mainstream, especially since the ADS definition of 1:1 is fairly strict—at least a full grade and no mobile carts." How new is this phenomenon? Well, according to Greaves and ADS co-author, Jeanne Hayes, although they started very gradually, "1:1 implementations have been around for at least 20 years." Hmm. Interesting number.
-- Judy Salpeter, EditorTuesday, November 11, 2008
What makes successful online teachers
eSchoolNews
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
These traits make online teachers successful
Clarity, creativity, and compassion are key characteristics for online instructors, says UCF researcher By Dennis Pierce, Managing Editor
The University of Central Florida is where Sloan-C Conference presenter Bill Phillips helps instructors hone their online teaching skills.
What are the qualities that help instructors succeed when teaching online? That was the focus of a lively discussion at the 14th annual Sloan-C International Conference on Online Learning Nov. 6.
Presenter Bill Phillips of the University of Central Florida discussed findings from his research on the topic. Not surprisingly, he said, successful online instructors share many of the same characteristics that successful teachers in traditional classrooms exhibit--but they also spend a lot of time establishing a persona of approachability and ensuring students' comfort in the course.
Online instructors face a number of challenges that traditional, face-to-face teachers don't have, Phillips noted. For one thing, students and their instructors can't see the visual clues that often help us understand the meaning behind another person's words. Humor is hard to pull off online, he added, lest it be mistaken or misunderstood. Also, communicating primarily through writing takes more time, and the technology itself can create a barrier to learning.
Phillips studied four undergraduate faculty members who were considered successful online instructors, based on factors such as their students' grades and course evaluations. He interviewed them extensively and also observed their online teaching.
He said all four demonstrated the "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education" (Chickering & Gamson, 1987), which are:
- Encouraging student-faculty contact;- Encouraging cooperation among students;- Encouraging active learning;- Giving prompt feedback;- Emphasizing time on task;- Setting high expectations; and- Respecting diverse talents and ways of learning.
But the successful online instructors also exhibited what Phillips called "swift trust," a term taken from the military. "You have to exude authority ... and gain students' trust from Day One or before," he explained, noting that all four instructors he observed shared this characteristic.
One way online instructors can establish this trust right away is to send a note to students individually before the course starts, introducing themselves and setting clear goals and expectations. The note can be warm and informal, but it must be clearly written.
Phillips said the teachers he observed were all effective writers, used humor judiciously, spent long hours online, provided a lot of feedback, and were caring, compassionate, flexible, creative, and organized. In addition, they created a lot of redundancy--that is, they posted directions and reminders in many places throughout the online course environment, to make sure students understood their assignments and what was expected of them.
"An effective online persona is critical for the successful online teacher," Phillips said. He urged administrators to prepare their faculty members for the challenges of teaching online before they jump right into the course.
Phillips also prompted attendees to think about their online personas, and whether these match their face-to-face personas. They don't necessarily have to, he said--but if they don't, why not? What online persona are you trying to project--and would students describe it the same way you would?
One conference participant, a young woman, said she felt the need to create what she called a "power distance" between herself and the class when she taught in a face-to-face setting, to establish her authority--whereas in an online setting, the opposite was true: She worked to break down this sense of distance.
Indeed, much of the rest of the discussion focused on how instructors can overcome the barrier of distance when teaching online.
One participant recommended using an informal tone in your online interactions with students, to contrast with the formal texts they're reading and to develop a rapport with them. Another said she uses the word "we" a lot, as in: "We will journey together..."
Participants also said they begin many interactions with the words "I understand..." One said she sends an initial greeting to students with this very theme; for instance: "I understand how hard it is to be an adult learner..."
Some participants said they've had success recording and attaching short video responses to students' questions, using the software that comes with their built-in web cameras. Making these brief answer-videos is quicker and more personal than typing a response and can convey the tone much better than a simple eMail message, they said.
Lisa Macon, an instructor at Valencia Community College in Orlando, Fla., said the best feedback she's gotten from students in her online courses has come when she's adopted this approach. "It makes it seem more like a regular class," she said.
Phillips agreed, though he cautioned attendees to make sure they're complying with their institution's policies for meeting the needs of disabled students. Adobe's Captivate software automatically adds closed captioning to a video, one participant noted.
Links:
University of Central Florida College of Education
Sloan-C International Conference on Online Learning
Note to readers: Don't forget to visit the Online Learning for High School Success resource center. Preventing high school dropouts has become a key focus of education stakeholders and government officials across the country, as the skills taught in high school are imperative to students' success. But with online credit recovery programs and virtual learning becoming more accessible to more students, many are able to regain momentum and graduate with high school diplomas. Go to: Online Learning for High School Success
eSchoolNews7920 Norfolk Ave, Suite 900, Bethesda Maryland, 20814Tel. (866) 394-0115, Fax. (301) 913-0119Web: http://www.eschoolnews.com, Email: WebAdmin@eschoolnews.com
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
These traits make online teachers successful
Clarity, creativity, and compassion are key characteristics for online instructors, says UCF researcher By Dennis Pierce, Managing Editor
The University of Central Florida is where Sloan-C Conference presenter Bill Phillips helps instructors hone their online teaching skills.
What are the qualities that help instructors succeed when teaching online? That was the focus of a lively discussion at the 14th annual Sloan-C International Conference on Online Learning Nov. 6.
Presenter Bill Phillips of the University of Central Florida discussed findings from his research on the topic. Not surprisingly, he said, successful online instructors share many of the same characteristics that successful teachers in traditional classrooms exhibit--but they also spend a lot of time establishing a persona of approachability and ensuring students' comfort in the course.
Online instructors face a number of challenges that traditional, face-to-face teachers don't have, Phillips noted. For one thing, students and their instructors can't see the visual clues that often help us understand the meaning behind another person's words. Humor is hard to pull off online, he added, lest it be mistaken or misunderstood. Also, communicating primarily through writing takes more time, and the technology itself can create a barrier to learning.
Phillips studied four undergraduate faculty members who were considered successful online instructors, based on factors such as their students' grades and course evaluations. He interviewed them extensively and also observed their online teaching.
He said all four demonstrated the "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education" (Chickering & Gamson, 1987), which are:
- Encouraging student-faculty contact;- Encouraging cooperation among students;- Encouraging active learning;- Giving prompt feedback;- Emphasizing time on task;- Setting high expectations; and- Respecting diverse talents and ways of learning.
But the successful online instructors also exhibited what Phillips called "swift trust," a term taken from the military. "You have to exude authority ... and gain students' trust from Day One or before," he explained, noting that all four instructors he observed shared this characteristic.
One way online instructors can establish this trust right away is to send a note to students individually before the course starts, introducing themselves and setting clear goals and expectations. The note can be warm and informal, but it must be clearly written.
Phillips said the teachers he observed were all effective writers, used humor judiciously, spent long hours online, provided a lot of feedback, and were caring, compassionate, flexible, creative, and organized. In addition, they created a lot of redundancy--that is, they posted directions and reminders in many places throughout the online course environment, to make sure students understood their assignments and what was expected of them.
"An effective online persona is critical for the successful online teacher," Phillips said. He urged administrators to prepare their faculty members for the challenges of teaching online before they jump right into the course.
Phillips also prompted attendees to think about their online personas, and whether these match their face-to-face personas. They don't necessarily have to, he said--but if they don't, why not? What online persona are you trying to project--and would students describe it the same way you would?
One conference participant, a young woman, said she felt the need to create what she called a "power distance" between herself and the class when she taught in a face-to-face setting, to establish her authority--whereas in an online setting, the opposite was true: She worked to break down this sense of distance.
Indeed, much of the rest of the discussion focused on how instructors can overcome the barrier of distance when teaching online.
One participant recommended using an informal tone in your online interactions with students, to contrast with the formal texts they're reading and to develop a rapport with them. Another said she uses the word "we" a lot, as in: "We will journey together..."
Participants also said they begin many interactions with the words "I understand..." One said she sends an initial greeting to students with this very theme; for instance: "I understand how hard it is to be an adult learner..."
Some participants said they've had success recording and attaching short video responses to students' questions, using the software that comes with their built-in web cameras. Making these brief answer-videos is quicker and more personal than typing a response and can convey the tone much better than a simple eMail message, they said.
Lisa Macon, an instructor at Valencia Community College in Orlando, Fla., said the best feedback she's gotten from students in her online courses has come when she's adopted this approach. "It makes it seem more like a regular class," she said.
Phillips agreed, though he cautioned attendees to make sure they're complying with their institution's policies for meeting the needs of disabled students. Adobe's Captivate software automatically adds closed captioning to a video, one participant noted.
Links:
University of Central Florida College of Education
Sloan-C International Conference on Online Learning
Note to readers: Don't forget to visit the Online Learning for High School Success resource center. Preventing high school dropouts has become a key focus of education stakeholders and government officials across the country, as the skills taught in high school are imperative to students' success. But with online credit recovery programs and virtual learning becoming more accessible to more students, many are able to regain momentum and graduate with high school diplomas. Go to: Online Learning for High School Success
eSchoolNews7920 Norfolk Ave, Suite 900, Bethesda Maryland, 20814Tel. (866) 394-0115, Fax. (301) 913-0119Web: http://www.eschoolnews.com, Email: WebAdmin@eschoolnews.com
Monday, November 10, 2008
SELF DIRECTED LEARNING
Self-Direction
Many books and articles about lifelong learning talk glibly about self direction. Too often this idea is seen as unproblematic - an obvious good. But things are not quite as they seem.
Contents: · Tough - self education and learning projects · product and process · Knowles - process and the rationale for self-directed learning · Tough - self education and learning projects · some problems · further reading
The most important attitude that can be formed', wrote John Dewey, 'is that of the desire to go on learning'. Here we explore some of the key issues around the idea of self-direction in learning. We also look at the contribution of Alan Tough and Malcolm Knowles - two of the key North American promoters of self directed learning and associated notions.
Tough: self education and learning projects
Various studies indicate that learning projects are undertaken by individuals outside of formal education provision on a substantial scale. For example a survey of adult learning undertaken by Sargant in the UK revealed that one in six people are trying to learn about or teach themselves something informally - at home, at work, or elsewhere (1991: 15) (see participation in learning). In other words , what we have here is a substantial body of people engaged in the process of what might be described as self-directed learning.
One of the key points of reference concerning such learning has been the work of Alan Tough. In a famous American study (1967) he initially described this process as 'self-teaching'. In such circumstances, learners assumed responsibility for planning and directing the course of study. As he developed his approach Tough tended to conceptualise his approach in terms of learning projects. Having established the existence of self-learning projects to his own satisfaction, Tough then went on to describe what he saw as the 13 key stepped, decision points about choosing what, where and how to learn. He assumed that adults have a sound range of abilities for planning and guiding their learning. (See lifelong learning).
More recently writers like Charles Hayes have returned to self teaching and sought to champion the idea that people should take control of their own learning and adopt self-directed inquiry as a lifelong priority. 'When we fail to take control of our education, we fail to take control of our lives. Self-directed inquiry, the process of taking control of your own education... is the lifeblood of democracy' (1998:xiv).
Product and process
So far we have been approaching self direction as a process. As a process, 'self directed learning is a form of study in which learners have the primary responsibility for planning, carrying out and evaluating their own learning experiences' (Merriam and Caffarella 1991: 41). As a product, as Robbie Kidd once put it, the aim 'is to make the subject a continuing "inner-directed", self-operating learner' (quoted in Brookfield 1985: 18). So we have two contrasting foci here. They can be further sub-divided. Candy (1991), in an influential review and exploration of self-direction, suggests that there are four main ways of approaching the literature. The four distinct but related phenomenon are as follows. Self-direction as:
* a personal attribute (personal autonomy)
* the willingness and capacity to conduct one's own education (self management).
* a mode of organizing instruction in formal settings (learner control)
* the individual, non-institutional pursuit of learning opportunities in the 'natural social setting' (autodidaxy).
In the first of Candy’s categories, the focus is on the personal orientation of the learner. In other words, what we are looking at here concerns the importance of understanding the characteristics of successful self-directed learners. In this sense, Brockett and Hiemstra argue that learner self-direction refers to 'characteristics of an individual that predispose one toward taking primary responsibility for personal learning endeavours (1991: 29). This particular strain of thinking owes much to the work of people such as Carl Rogers and Maslow (see, also humanistic psychology and learning. Interest in developing what Candy describes as self-managing learners may be linked to a broader concern to further adulthood or personal autonomy.
However, at this point we begin to run into problems - there are narrow, technical, definitions of adulthood and autonomy and broader ideas about what may make for human well-being. From a narrow view it may be possible to be 'a superb technician of self-directed learning in terms of one's command of goal setting, instructional design or evaluative procedures, and yet to exercise no critical questioning of the validity or worth of one's intellectual pursuit as compared with competing, alternative possibilities' (Brookfield 1985: 29). In other words, gaining a technical ability to manage may not address basic questions concerning social, moral and political dimensions of learning. As Candy again puts it (1991: 22), from the practitioner's point of view it is important to decide whether the interest lies in fostering self-managing learners or self-determining people. This is a theme we need to bear in mind when examining the highly influential work of Malcolm Knowles.
Knowles, process and the rationale for self-directed learning
In its broadest meaning, 'self-directed learning' describes, according to Malcolm Knowles (1975: 18) a process:
... in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes.
Malcolm KnowlesKnowles puts forward three immediate reasons for self-directed learning. First he argues that there is convincing evidence that people who take the initiative in learning (proactive learners) learn more things, and learn better, than do people who sit at the feet of teachers passively waiting to be taught (reactive learners). 'They enter into learning more purposefully and with greater motivation. They also tend to retain and make use of what they learn better and longer than do the reactive learners.' (Knowles 1975: 14)
A second immediate reason is that self-directed learning is more in tune with our natural processes of psychological development. 'An essential aspect of maturing is developing the ability to take increasing responsibility for our own lives - to become increasingly self-directed' (Knowles 1975: 15).
A third immediate reason is that many of the new developments in education put a heavy responsibility on the learners to take a good deal of initiative in their own learning. 'Students entering into these programs without having learned the skills of self-directed inquiry will experience anxiety, frustration , and often failure, and so will their teachers (Knowles 1975: 15).
To this may be added a long-term reason - because of rapid changes in our understanding is no longer realistic to define the purpose of education as transmitting what is known. The main purpose of education must now to be to develop the skills of inquiry (op cit).
Knowles’ skill was then to put the idea of self direction into packaged forms of activity that could be taken by educators and learners. He popularized these through various books and courses. His five step model involved:
1. diagnosing learning needs.
2. formulating learning needs.
3. identifying human material resources for learning.
4. choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies.
5. evaluating learning outcomes.
As Merriam and Cafferella (1991: 46) comment, this means of conceptualizing the way we learn on our own is very similar to much of the literature on planning and carrying out instruction for adults in formal institutional settings. It is represented as a linear process. From what we have already said about the process of reflection this is an assumption that needs treating with some care. Indeed, as we will see, there is research that indicates that adults do not necessarily follow a defined set of steps - but are far more in the hands of chance and circumstance. Like Dewey's conception of reflection an event or phenomenon triggers a learning project. This is often associated with a change in life circumstances (such as retirement, child care, death of a close relative and so on). The changed circumstance provides the opportunity for learning, the way this is approached is dictated by the circumstances. Learning then progresses as 'the circumstances created in one episode become the circumstances for the next logical step' (op cit). Self-directed learning thus, in this view, becomes possible, when certain things cluster together to form the stimulus and the opportunity for reflection and exploration.
However, once we begin to take into account the environment in which this occurs then significant concerns arise. Spear and Mocker, and Spear (1984, 1988 quoted in Merriam and Caffarella 1991: 46-8) found that 'self-directed learners, rather than pre-planning their learning projects, tend to select a course from limited alternatives which happen to occur in their environment and which tend to structure their learning projects'. This is of fundamental importance. It is in this light that Brookfield’s (1994) question is pertinent: 'What are the essential characteristics of a critical, rather than technical, interpretation of self-directed learning?' Two suggest themselves:
* self-direction as the continuous exercise by the learner of authentic control over all decisions having to do with learning, and
* self-direction as the ability to gain access to, and choose from, a full range of available and appropriate resources.
Both these conditions are, he argues, as much political as they are pedagogical and they place educators who choose to use self-directed approaches in the centre of political issues and dilemma.
Some further problems
Brookfield provides some key elements of a critique of this area. In some respects his arguments have been addressed by Brockett and Hiemestra - but fundamental questions do remain with regard to the dominant ways of thinking about self-directedness.
Brookfield is an interesting example, because he started out by embracing the notion and undertaking substantial research into self-directed learning. Over the first half of the 1980s he began to pull back from the term, or rather use in a very specific way. A good account of this can be found in Brookfield (1986) and it is discussed by Brockett and Hiemstra (1991). Here I will outline what he says - but will put it in a slightly different framework.
Problems with the 'humanistic psychology' framework
There is, I think, a particular problem associated with the concept of the self and of reflection used within dominant approaches to adult education and humanistic psychology more generally. It is culturally bound - it refers to a particular set of debates and concerns that characterised North American discourse.
First there is the extent to which people understand the self that is involved in conducting learning is culturally formed and bound. As Brookfield (1994) put it:
Who we are and how we decide what it is important for us to be able to know or do are questions that are questions of culture. The self in a self-directed learning project is not an autonomous, innocent self, contentedly floating free from cultural influences. It has not sprung fully formed out of a political vacuum. It is, rather, an embedded self, a self whose instincts, values, needs and beliefs have been shaped by the surrounding culture.
As Brockett and Hiemstra (1991: 32) argue, self-directed learning activities 'cannot be divorced from the social context in which they occur' because 'the social context provides the arena in which the activity of self-direction is played out'. They call for more attention to the way in which global and cross-cultural factors frame this activity.
Second, it is important to recognize just how individualistic and the appreciation of the self is that runs through a great deal of the literature of adult education. Usher (1994) brings this out well.
Within the literature of adult learning there is a tendency to be more concerned with the nature of this process and with how it can make be made more effective than with the nature of the 'selves' who are undergoing it. In other words, whilst the process of adult learning is considered problematic, 'selves' are not. However, the very notion of adult learning as a process where desirable changes are brought about is itself dependent upon particular, yet taken-for-granted conceptions of the self. Who is being changed cannot be left at that.
The individual and the group and the nature of autonomy
A further run on, and linked with the above, is the extent to which an emphasis is placed on the individual at the expense of the group. The problem here is that individuals can exist only so long as there are groups. In this sense no project can be wholly self-directed - it always has to take account of the wishes of others, and the dynamics of the context in which it takes place. This is how Eduard Lindeman put it.
Freedom can never be absolute. None of us is self-determined. Self is relative to other selves and to the inclusive environment. We live in freedom when we are conscious of a degree of self-direction proportionate to our capacities. (Lindeman 1926: 50)
To be autonomous requires that people have a developed self, to which their actions can be ascribed. 'In turn this requires a consciousness of oneself as a being who acts for reasons, whose behaviour can be explained by reference to one's own goals and purposes' (Lindley 1986: 6). A second dimension of autonomy requires freedom from external constraints. That is to say, an autonomous person is someone who is not manipulated by others. Such a person is able to act in pursuit of self-chosen goals. However, autonomy on its own is not enough to get around the problems of reconciling self and society within education.
One way round this is to argue that the well-being that educators should help individuals to pursue, involves leading a life of moral virtue. In this life, the individual's own needs should not automatically be given preferential treatment but be weighed in relation to the needs of others (White 1982: 98).
This is a crucial point because a good deal of the discussion about self-directed learning tends to float free of the content. Self-directed learning is approached as a range of techniques that can be utilised by anyone. However, as we can see here, there are within it important social, moral and political dimensions. Education, as Dewey puts it, is a moral craft. In this respect then, discussion of self-directed learning has to consider well being - not just of the individual but of the group as a whole.
It is this theme that Boucouvalas (1988) has picked up on. She uses the idea of homonomy (in conjunction with autonomy) as complementary dimensions of the growth of the self (Merriam and Carrafella 1991: 218). While autonomy is said to express independence and separateness, homonomy is 'the experience of being part of meaningful wholes and in harmony with superindividual units such as family, social group, culture and cosmic order' (see discusion of selfhood).
The problem of goals and linear forms
In the Knowles’ model something of an emphasis is put on formulating goals. In other words it involves knowing what the desired outcomes are before setting out on the project. This does not fit with the reality of many people's self-teaching projects or what we know of informal education. While much of the learning may initially appear to be incidental, it is not necessarily accidental. We are concerned here with purposeful and conscious actions. The specific goals may not be clear at any one time either to the educator or to the learner. Yet the process is deliberate in that the people concerned are seeking to acquire some knowledge, skills and/or attitudes. However, such purpose and intent may not always be marked by closely specified goals (Brookfield 1983: 15). What educators do is contribute to the development of the context and conditions which allow the desired 'internal' change we know as learning to occur.
Here we might go back to the work of Cyril Houle. He argued that there are three main groupings of adults who continue to learn. These orientations are:
* goal-orientated - those who use education as a means of accomplishing fairly clear cut objectives.
* activity-orientated - those who take part in such activities because of an attraction in the circumstances of learning rather than in the content or announced purpose.
* learning-orientated - those that seem to seek knowledge for its own sake (Houle 1961: 15-16).
Beyond the question of goals lies a deep problem with the linear form. We saw something of this in relation to experiential learning and reflection. People do not think in neat stages, they do not move sequentially through a series of steps. Earlier I commented on the work of Spear and Mocker - and the significance of circumstance and chance in such learning projects. Here I want to ask why this concern with the linear form?
Part of the problem is the dominance, according to Candy, Usher and others, of positivist paradigms. As you know what this involves is the application of methods derived supposedly from the 'natural sciences'. There is some dispute about the characterization of science in this way, but the picture painted is of knowledge derived from following systematic procedures and experiment. The linear, stepped, form is seen as an expression of this. Candy argues that such forms need to be abandoned in favour of more interpretitive approaches; Usher in favour of the postmodern. However, Merriam and Cafferella argue that to look to both; that self-directed learning probably occurs both by design and by chance - 'depending on the interests experiences, and actions of individuals and the circumstances in which they find themselves' (op cit: 49-50).
The question of research
This last point brings to the surface an issue that has run through much that I have said here. The empirical base for the various claims made about self-direction is thin. Studies have been small and there are questions concerning their applicability across cultures.
In conclusion
We are left with some problems around the notion of self-direction. This is not to say that there it has some use in exploring education and learning - but it does need treating with care. In a very real sense all learning is, by definition self-directed - it is, as Collins has said, purposeful. The problem we have with the notion becomes most strong when it is reduced to technique.
Further reading
Brockett, R. G. and Hiemstra, R. (1991) Self-Direction in Adult Learning. Perspectives on theory, research and practice, London: Routledge. 276 pages. Useful review of the material on self-direction in learning. Includes a critique of Brookfield. The opening section sets up a conceptual framework for understanding self-direction; part two looks to the underlying knowledge base; part three to process and personal orientations; part four to fostering opportunities for self-direction in adult learning; and part five looks forward.
Brookfield, S. (ed.) (1985) Self-Directed Learning. From theory to practice, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 229 pages. Uses a number of case studies to examine how self-directed learning can be approached in different settings.
Candy, P. C. (1991) Self-direction for Lifelong Learning. A comprehensive guide to theory and practice, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 567 pages. Now pretty much the standard survey of the literature of self-direction in adult education. Part one deals with the scope and meaning of self-directed learning; part two look to four dimensions of self-direction (personal autonomy, self-management, the independent pursuit of learning, learner control); part three examines new theoretical insights on self-directed learning; part four looks to promoting self-direction; and part five is concerned with realizing the potential of self-direction.
Hayes, C. (1998) Beyond the American Dream. Lifelong learning and the search for meaning in a postmodern world, Wasilla: Autodidactic Press. 365 + xvii pages. Fascinating and distinctive exploration of self-education as the lifeblood of (American) democracy and critique of education as a means to an economic end. Seeks to break through the perceptual barriers of popular culture and new-age doctrines in search of meaning itself. Argues that we affirm the quality of our existence through ideas. Real poverty comes from settling for dreams defined by others while remaining bereft of our own.
Jarvis, P. (1992) Paradoxes of Learning. On becoming an individual in society, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 272 + xv pages. Concerned with the role of adult education in the formation of the self.
Knowles, M. (1975) Self-Directed Learning. A guide for learners and teachers, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall/Cambridge. 135 pages. Programmatic guide that is rather objective oriented. Sections on the learner, the teacher and learning resources.
Selfhood
Burkitt, I. (1990) Social Selves. Theories of the social formation of personality, London: Sage. 225 pages. Interdisciplinary overview of theories of the social formation of personality.
Burr, V. (1995) An Introduction to Social Constructionism, London: Routledge. 194 + ix pages. Clear introduction to debates around socially constructed notions of the person.
Sampson, E. E. (1993) Celebrating the Other. A dialogic account of human nature, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester/Wheatsheaf. 207 + x pages. Very clear introduction to some of the debates around notions of the self.
Taylor, C. (1989) Sources of the Self. The making of the modern identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 601 + xii pages. Important inquiry into the sources of modern selfhood. Sections deal with identity and the good; inwardness; the affirmation of ordinary life; the voice of nature; and subtler languages.
Also referenced
Brookfield, S. D. (1983) Adult Learning, Adult Education and the Community, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Brookfield, S. D. (1986) Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning. A comprehensive analysis of principles and effective practices, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Brookfield, S. B. (1994) 'Self directed learning' in YMCA George Williams College ICE301 Adult and Community Education Unit 2: Approaching adult education, London: YMCA George Williams College.
Collins, M. (1991) Adult Education as Vocation. A critical role for the adult educator, London: Routledge.
Houle, C. O. (1961) The Inquiring Mind. A study of the adult who continues to learn, Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.
Lindeman, E. (1926) The Meaning of Adult Education (1989 edn), Norman: Oklahoma Research Centre for Continuing Professional and Higher Education.
Lindley, R. (1986) Autonomy, London: Macmillan.
Merriam, S. B. and Caffarella, R. S. (1991) Learning in Adulthood. A comprehensive guide, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sargant, N. (1991) Learning and 'Leisure'. A study of adult participation in learning and its policy implications, Leicester: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education
Sargant, N. with Field, J., Francis, H., Schuller, T. and Tuckett, A. (1997) The Learning Divide. A study of participation in adult learning in the United Kingdom, Leicester: National Institute for Adult Continuing Education.
Tough, A. M. (1967) Learning Without a Teacher. A study of tasks and assistance during adult self-teaching projects, Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Tough, A. M. (1979) The Adult's Learning Projects. A fresh approach to theory and practice in adult learning, Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Usher, R. (1994) 'Contrasting notions of the self and the literature of adult education' in YMCA George Williams College ICE301 Adult and Community Education Unit 1: Approaching adult learning, London: YMCA George Williams College.
Tough, A. M. (1989) 'Self-directed learning: concepts and practice' in C. J. Titmus (ed.) Lifelong Education for Adults. An international handbook, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
White, J. (1982) The Aims of Education Restated, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
© Mark K. Smith 1996. Last update: October 01, 2008
Many books and articles about lifelong learning talk glibly about self direction. Too often this idea is seen as unproblematic - an obvious good. But things are not quite as they seem.
Contents: · Tough - self education and learning projects · product and process · Knowles - process and the rationale for self-directed learning · Tough - self education and learning projects · some problems · further reading
The most important attitude that can be formed', wrote John Dewey, 'is that of the desire to go on learning'. Here we explore some of the key issues around the idea of self-direction in learning. We also look at the contribution of Alan Tough and Malcolm Knowles - two of the key North American promoters of self directed learning and associated notions.
Tough: self education and learning projects
Various studies indicate that learning projects are undertaken by individuals outside of formal education provision on a substantial scale. For example a survey of adult learning undertaken by Sargant in the UK revealed that one in six people are trying to learn about or teach themselves something informally - at home, at work, or elsewhere (1991: 15) (see participation in learning). In other words , what we have here is a substantial body of people engaged in the process of what might be described as self-directed learning.
One of the key points of reference concerning such learning has been the work of Alan Tough. In a famous American study (1967) he initially described this process as 'self-teaching'. In such circumstances, learners assumed responsibility for planning and directing the course of study. As he developed his approach Tough tended to conceptualise his approach in terms of learning projects. Having established the existence of self-learning projects to his own satisfaction, Tough then went on to describe what he saw as the 13 key stepped, decision points about choosing what, where and how to learn. He assumed that adults have a sound range of abilities for planning and guiding their learning. (See lifelong learning).
More recently writers like Charles Hayes have returned to self teaching and sought to champion the idea that people should take control of their own learning and adopt self-directed inquiry as a lifelong priority. 'When we fail to take control of our education, we fail to take control of our lives. Self-directed inquiry, the process of taking control of your own education... is the lifeblood of democracy' (1998:xiv).
Product and process
So far we have been approaching self direction as a process. As a process, 'self directed learning is a form of study in which learners have the primary responsibility for planning, carrying out and evaluating their own learning experiences' (Merriam and Caffarella 1991: 41). As a product, as Robbie Kidd once put it, the aim 'is to make the subject a continuing "inner-directed", self-operating learner' (quoted in Brookfield 1985: 18). So we have two contrasting foci here. They can be further sub-divided. Candy (1991), in an influential review and exploration of self-direction, suggests that there are four main ways of approaching the literature. The four distinct but related phenomenon are as follows. Self-direction as:
* a personal attribute (personal autonomy)
* the willingness and capacity to conduct one's own education (self management).
* a mode of organizing instruction in formal settings (learner control)
* the individual, non-institutional pursuit of learning opportunities in the 'natural social setting' (autodidaxy).
In the first of Candy’s categories, the focus is on the personal orientation of the learner. In other words, what we are looking at here concerns the importance of understanding the characteristics of successful self-directed learners. In this sense, Brockett and Hiemstra argue that learner self-direction refers to 'characteristics of an individual that predispose one toward taking primary responsibility for personal learning endeavours (1991: 29). This particular strain of thinking owes much to the work of people such as Carl Rogers and Maslow (see, also humanistic psychology and learning. Interest in developing what Candy describes as self-managing learners may be linked to a broader concern to further adulthood or personal autonomy.
However, at this point we begin to run into problems - there are narrow, technical, definitions of adulthood and autonomy and broader ideas about what may make for human well-being. From a narrow view it may be possible to be 'a superb technician of self-directed learning in terms of one's command of goal setting, instructional design or evaluative procedures, and yet to exercise no critical questioning of the validity or worth of one's intellectual pursuit as compared with competing, alternative possibilities' (Brookfield 1985: 29). In other words, gaining a technical ability to manage may not address basic questions concerning social, moral and political dimensions of learning. As Candy again puts it (1991: 22), from the practitioner's point of view it is important to decide whether the interest lies in fostering self-managing learners or self-determining people. This is a theme we need to bear in mind when examining the highly influential work of Malcolm Knowles.
Knowles, process and the rationale for self-directed learning
In its broadest meaning, 'self-directed learning' describes, according to Malcolm Knowles (1975: 18) a process:
... in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes.
Malcolm KnowlesKnowles puts forward three immediate reasons for self-directed learning. First he argues that there is convincing evidence that people who take the initiative in learning (proactive learners) learn more things, and learn better, than do people who sit at the feet of teachers passively waiting to be taught (reactive learners). 'They enter into learning more purposefully and with greater motivation. They also tend to retain and make use of what they learn better and longer than do the reactive learners.' (Knowles 1975: 14)
A second immediate reason is that self-directed learning is more in tune with our natural processes of psychological development. 'An essential aspect of maturing is developing the ability to take increasing responsibility for our own lives - to become increasingly self-directed' (Knowles 1975: 15).
A third immediate reason is that many of the new developments in education put a heavy responsibility on the learners to take a good deal of initiative in their own learning. 'Students entering into these programs without having learned the skills of self-directed inquiry will experience anxiety, frustration , and often failure, and so will their teachers (Knowles 1975: 15).
To this may be added a long-term reason - because of rapid changes in our understanding is no longer realistic to define the purpose of education as transmitting what is known. The main purpose of education must now to be to develop the skills of inquiry (op cit).
Knowles’ skill was then to put the idea of self direction into packaged forms of activity that could be taken by educators and learners. He popularized these through various books and courses. His five step model involved:
1. diagnosing learning needs.
2. formulating learning needs.
3. identifying human material resources for learning.
4. choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies.
5. evaluating learning outcomes.
As Merriam and Cafferella (1991: 46) comment, this means of conceptualizing the way we learn on our own is very similar to much of the literature on planning and carrying out instruction for adults in formal institutional settings. It is represented as a linear process. From what we have already said about the process of reflection this is an assumption that needs treating with some care. Indeed, as we will see, there is research that indicates that adults do not necessarily follow a defined set of steps - but are far more in the hands of chance and circumstance. Like Dewey's conception of reflection an event or phenomenon triggers a learning project. This is often associated with a change in life circumstances (such as retirement, child care, death of a close relative and so on). The changed circumstance provides the opportunity for learning, the way this is approached is dictated by the circumstances. Learning then progresses as 'the circumstances created in one episode become the circumstances for the next logical step' (op cit). Self-directed learning thus, in this view, becomes possible, when certain things cluster together to form the stimulus and the opportunity for reflection and exploration.
However, once we begin to take into account the environment in which this occurs then significant concerns arise. Spear and Mocker, and Spear (1984, 1988 quoted in Merriam and Caffarella 1991: 46-8) found that 'self-directed learners, rather than pre-planning their learning projects, tend to select a course from limited alternatives which happen to occur in their environment and which tend to structure their learning projects'. This is of fundamental importance. It is in this light that Brookfield’s (1994) question is pertinent: 'What are the essential characteristics of a critical, rather than technical, interpretation of self-directed learning?' Two suggest themselves:
* self-direction as the continuous exercise by the learner of authentic control over all decisions having to do with learning, and
* self-direction as the ability to gain access to, and choose from, a full range of available and appropriate resources.
Both these conditions are, he argues, as much political as they are pedagogical and they place educators who choose to use self-directed approaches in the centre of political issues and dilemma.
Some further problems
Brookfield provides some key elements of a critique of this area. In some respects his arguments have been addressed by Brockett and Hiemestra - but fundamental questions do remain with regard to the dominant ways of thinking about self-directedness.
Brookfield is an interesting example, because he started out by embracing the notion and undertaking substantial research into self-directed learning. Over the first half of the 1980s he began to pull back from the term, or rather use in a very specific way. A good account of this can be found in Brookfield (1986) and it is discussed by Brockett and Hiemstra (1991). Here I will outline what he says - but will put it in a slightly different framework.
Problems with the 'humanistic psychology' framework
There is, I think, a particular problem associated with the concept of the self and of reflection used within dominant approaches to adult education and humanistic psychology more generally. It is culturally bound - it refers to a particular set of debates and concerns that characterised North American discourse.
First there is the extent to which people understand the self that is involved in conducting learning is culturally formed and bound. As Brookfield (1994) put it:
Who we are and how we decide what it is important for us to be able to know or do are questions that are questions of culture. The self in a self-directed learning project is not an autonomous, innocent self, contentedly floating free from cultural influences. It has not sprung fully formed out of a political vacuum. It is, rather, an embedded self, a self whose instincts, values, needs and beliefs have been shaped by the surrounding culture.
As Brockett and Hiemstra (1991: 32) argue, self-directed learning activities 'cannot be divorced from the social context in which they occur' because 'the social context provides the arena in which the activity of self-direction is played out'. They call for more attention to the way in which global and cross-cultural factors frame this activity.
Second, it is important to recognize just how individualistic and the appreciation of the self is that runs through a great deal of the literature of adult education. Usher (1994) brings this out well.
Within the literature of adult learning there is a tendency to be more concerned with the nature of this process and with how it can make be made more effective than with the nature of the 'selves' who are undergoing it. In other words, whilst the process of adult learning is considered problematic, 'selves' are not. However, the very notion of adult learning as a process where desirable changes are brought about is itself dependent upon particular, yet taken-for-granted conceptions of the self. Who is being changed cannot be left at that.
The individual and the group and the nature of autonomy
A further run on, and linked with the above, is the extent to which an emphasis is placed on the individual at the expense of the group. The problem here is that individuals can exist only so long as there are groups. In this sense no project can be wholly self-directed - it always has to take account of the wishes of others, and the dynamics of the context in which it takes place. This is how Eduard Lindeman put it.
Freedom can never be absolute. None of us is self-determined. Self is relative to other selves and to the inclusive environment. We live in freedom when we are conscious of a degree of self-direction proportionate to our capacities. (Lindeman 1926: 50)
To be autonomous requires that people have a developed self, to which their actions can be ascribed. 'In turn this requires a consciousness of oneself as a being who acts for reasons, whose behaviour can be explained by reference to one's own goals and purposes' (Lindley 1986: 6). A second dimension of autonomy requires freedom from external constraints. That is to say, an autonomous person is someone who is not manipulated by others. Such a person is able to act in pursuit of self-chosen goals. However, autonomy on its own is not enough to get around the problems of reconciling self and society within education.
One way round this is to argue that the well-being that educators should help individuals to pursue, involves leading a life of moral virtue. In this life, the individual's own needs should not automatically be given preferential treatment but be weighed in relation to the needs of others (White 1982: 98).
This is a crucial point because a good deal of the discussion about self-directed learning tends to float free of the content. Self-directed learning is approached as a range of techniques that can be utilised by anyone. However, as we can see here, there are within it important social, moral and political dimensions. Education, as Dewey puts it, is a moral craft. In this respect then, discussion of self-directed learning has to consider well being - not just of the individual but of the group as a whole.
It is this theme that Boucouvalas (1988) has picked up on. She uses the idea of homonomy (in conjunction with autonomy) as complementary dimensions of the growth of the self (Merriam and Carrafella 1991: 218). While autonomy is said to express independence and separateness, homonomy is 'the experience of being part of meaningful wholes and in harmony with superindividual units such as family, social group, culture and cosmic order' (see discusion of selfhood).
The problem of goals and linear forms
In the Knowles’ model something of an emphasis is put on formulating goals. In other words it involves knowing what the desired outcomes are before setting out on the project. This does not fit with the reality of many people's self-teaching projects or what we know of informal education. While much of the learning may initially appear to be incidental, it is not necessarily accidental. We are concerned here with purposeful and conscious actions. The specific goals may not be clear at any one time either to the educator or to the learner. Yet the process is deliberate in that the people concerned are seeking to acquire some knowledge, skills and/or attitudes. However, such purpose and intent may not always be marked by closely specified goals (Brookfield 1983: 15). What educators do is contribute to the development of the context and conditions which allow the desired 'internal' change we know as learning to occur.
Here we might go back to the work of Cyril Houle. He argued that there are three main groupings of adults who continue to learn. These orientations are:
* goal-orientated - those who use education as a means of accomplishing fairly clear cut objectives.
* activity-orientated - those who take part in such activities because of an attraction in the circumstances of learning rather than in the content or announced purpose.
* learning-orientated - those that seem to seek knowledge for its own sake (Houle 1961: 15-16).
Beyond the question of goals lies a deep problem with the linear form. We saw something of this in relation to experiential learning and reflection. People do not think in neat stages, they do not move sequentially through a series of steps. Earlier I commented on the work of Spear and Mocker - and the significance of circumstance and chance in such learning projects. Here I want to ask why this concern with the linear form?
Part of the problem is the dominance, according to Candy, Usher and others, of positivist paradigms. As you know what this involves is the application of methods derived supposedly from the 'natural sciences'. There is some dispute about the characterization of science in this way, but the picture painted is of knowledge derived from following systematic procedures and experiment. The linear, stepped, form is seen as an expression of this. Candy argues that such forms need to be abandoned in favour of more interpretitive approaches; Usher in favour of the postmodern. However, Merriam and Cafferella argue that to look to both; that self-directed learning probably occurs both by design and by chance - 'depending on the interests experiences, and actions of individuals and the circumstances in which they find themselves' (op cit: 49-50).
The question of research
This last point brings to the surface an issue that has run through much that I have said here. The empirical base for the various claims made about self-direction is thin. Studies have been small and there are questions concerning their applicability across cultures.
In conclusion
We are left with some problems around the notion of self-direction. This is not to say that there it has some use in exploring education and learning - but it does need treating with care. In a very real sense all learning is, by definition self-directed - it is, as Collins has said, purposeful. The problem we have with the notion becomes most strong when it is reduced to technique.
Further reading
Brockett, R. G. and Hiemstra, R. (1991) Self-Direction in Adult Learning. Perspectives on theory, research and practice, London: Routledge. 276 pages. Useful review of the material on self-direction in learning. Includes a critique of Brookfield. The opening section sets up a conceptual framework for understanding self-direction; part two looks to the underlying knowledge base; part three to process and personal orientations; part four to fostering opportunities for self-direction in adult learning; and part five looks forward.
Brookfield, S. (ed.) (1985) Self-Directed Learning. From theory to practice, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 229 pages. Uses a number of case studies to examine how self-directed learning can be approached in different settings.
Candy, P. C. (1991) Self-direction for Lifelong Learning. A comprehensive guide to theory and practice, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 567 pages. Now pretty much the standard survey of the literature of self-direction in adult education. Part one deals with the scope and meaning of self-directed learning; part two look to four dimensions of self-direction (personal autonomy, self-management, the independent pursuit of learning, learner control); part three examines new theoretical insights on self-directed learning; part four looks to promoting self-direction; and part five is concerned with realizing the potential of self-direction.
Hayes, C. (1998) Beyond the American Dream. Lifelong learning and the search for meaning in a postmodern world, Wasilla: Autodidactic Press. 365 + xvii pages. Fascinating and distinctive exploration of self-education as the lifeblood of (American) democracy and critique of education as a means to an economic end. Seeks to break through the perceptual barriers of popular culture and new-age doctrines in search of meaning itself. Argues that we affirm the quality of our existence through ideas. Real poverty comes from settling for dreams defined by others while remaining bereft of our own.
Jarvis, P. (1992) Paradoxes of Learning. On becoming an individual in society, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 272 + xv pages. Concerned with the role of adult education in the formation of the self.
Knowles, M. (1975) Self-Directed Learning. A guide for learners and teachers, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall/Cambridge. 135 pages. Programmatic guide that is rather objective oriented. Sections on the learner, the teacher and learning resources.
Selfhood
Burkitt, I. (1990) Social Selves. Theories of the social formation of personality, London: Sage. 225 pages. Interdisciplinary overview of theories of the social formation of personality.
Burr, V. (1995) An Introduction to Social Constructionism, London: Routledge. 194 + ix pages. Clear introduction to debates around socially constructed notions of the person.
Sampson, E. E. (1993) Celebrating the Other. A dialogic account of human nature, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester/Wheatsheaf. 207 + x pages. Very clear introduction to some of the debates around notions of the self.
Taylor, C. (1989) Sources of the Self. The making of the modern identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 601 + xii pages. Important inquiry into the sources of modern selfhood. Sections deal with identity and the good; inwardness; the affirmation of ordinary life; the voice of nature; and subtler languages.
Also referenced
Brookfield, S. D. (1983) Adult Learning, Adult Education and the Community, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Brookfield, S. D. (1986) Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning. A comprehensive analysis of principles and effective practices, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Brookfield, S. B. (1994) 'Self directed learning' in YMCA George Williams College ICE301 Adult and Community Education Unit 2: Approaching adult education, London: YMCA George Williams College.
Collins, M. (1991) Adult Education as Vocation. A critical role for the adult educator, London: Routledge.
Houle, C. O. (1961) The Inquiring Mind. A study of the adult who continues to learn, Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.
Lindeman, E. (1926) The Meaning of Adult Education (1989 edn), Norman: Oklahoma Research Centre for Continuing Professional and Higher Education.
Lindley, R. (1986) Autonomy, London: Macmillan.
Merriam, S. B. and Caffarella, R. S. (1991) Learning in Adulthood. A comprehensive guide, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sargant, N. (1991) Learning and 'Leisure'. A study of adult participation in learning and its policy implications, Leicester: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education
Sargant, N. with Field, J., Francis, H., Schuller, T. and Tuckett, A. (1997) The Learning Divide. A study of participation in adult learning in the United Kingdom, Leicester: National Institute for Adult Continuing Education.
Tough, A. M. (1967) Learning Without a Teacher. A study of tasks and assistance during adult self-teaching projects, Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Tough, A. M. (1979) The Adult's Learning Projects. A fresh approach to theory and practice in adult learning, Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Usher, R. (1994) 'Contrasting notions of the self and the literature of adult education' in YMCA George Williams College ICE301 Adult and Community Education Unit 1: Approaching adult learning, London: YMCA George Williams College.
Tough, A. M. (1989) 'Self-directed learning: concepts and practice' in C. J. Titmus (ed.) Lifelong Education for Adults. An international handbook, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
White, J. (1982) The Aims of Education Restated, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
© Mark K. Smith 1996. Last update: October 01, 2008
Rigor, Relevance, RELATIONSHIPS
Relationship
What is a relationship, and what special qualities are present in informal education? We suggest that the focus on learning, mutuality and the emotional bond between people are important features of the sorts of relationships that informal educators are involved in.
Contents: introduction · relationship for starters · some features of relationships · relationship as a catalyst · relationships that facilitate learning · conclusion · further reading and references · links
There is, and has been, a lot of talk about relationship in youth work and informal education. Two themes emerge with some regularity. These are:
Education for relationship. The ability to develop good and satisfying interpersonal relationships is seen as the main, or a major reason for fostering learning. This has been one of the main themes lying behind many informal educators concern with social education.
Education through relationship. Our relationships are a fundamental source of learning. By paying attention to the nature of the relationship between educators and learners, it is argued, we can make a significant difference. In particular, the quality of the relationship deeply influences the hopefulness required to remain curious and open to new experiences, and the capacity to see connections and discover meanings (Salzberger-Wittenberg et al. 1983: ix).
Here we are going to explore what we mean by ‘relationship’, some particular features of the relationships involving informal educators, relationship as a catalyst and the facilitative qualities of relationship.
Relationship for starters
Relationship is one of those words often used, but taken for granted. We ‘know’ what it means. We know relationships are important. We know relationships can be difficult. We know relationships can bring great happiness and sadness. But what actually is a relationship in the context of human behaviour?
George Goetschius and Joan Tash (1967: 137), in one of the classic texts of youth work, provide us with a good starting point: ‘A relationship is a connection between two people in which some sort of exchange takes place’. In other words, there is some sort of link between people – and it involves interaction. That connection may be something that we are born into, such as is the case with families, or it might arise out of a particular need. A classic example of the latter can be found in the marketplace. We might want to buy bread, so we look for someone who can sell us it. What is interesting about this is that the two sides have different interests (buying and selling). However, they can come together as their interests are compatible – both can be satisfied. There is advantage to both in the link. We can also see here the nature of the exchange – bread for money. At this sort of level there is at first glance very little emotion involved. As George Goetschius and Joan Tash (1967: 137) again say, a relationship ‘may be verbal, emotional, physical or intellectual, and is often all of these’. They further comment:
It may include an exchange of ideas, skills, attitudes or values, or even the exchange of things – money, tools or food. Relationships ‘happen’ at all times, in all places, in all parts of society, and in all phases of the development of individuals. We are involved in relationships all the time.
It is important to hold onto an appreciation of relationship as something everyday. However, we also need to recognize just how complex even apparently simple relationships such as buying and selling are. They entail cooperation and trust.
Building such cooperation and trust is a fundamental aspect of relationship. We have to work at them. Relationships are things people do, not just have (Duck 1999: 21). This said we should also recognize the contribution of our social instincts. As Matt Ridley (1997: 249) put it, ‘Our minds have been built by selfish genes, but they have been built to be social, trustworthy and cooperative’. He continues:
Matt Ridley - The origins of virtureHumans have social instincts. They come into the world equipped with predispositions to learn how to cooperate, to discriminate the trustworthy from the treacherous, to commit themselves to be trustworthy, to earn good reputations, to exchange goods and information, and to divide labour… Far from being a universal feature of animal life, as Kropotkin believed, this instinctive cooperativeness is the very hallmark of humanity and what sets us apart from other animals. (Ridley 1997: 249)
To this extent, the cultivation of reciprocity, honesty and trust is less about building alien institutions and structures, than creating the conditions for their emergence. Relationships are strongly influenced by context.
Lastly, it is worth making the distinction between personal relationships and social relationships. The former are relationships between two people ‘who cannot be exchanged without changing the nature of the relationship (Duck 1999: 124). An example of this would two people who are ‘best friends’. In contrast, social relationships are where ‘two partners in an interaction could be exchanged and the relationship would be the same’ (op. cit). Here a classic example would be sales assistant and a customer in a shop. Informal educators largely work through personal relationships.
Some features of relationships
Felix P. Biestek (1961) in The Casework Relationship argues that while the many possible interpersonal relationships have similarities, each has its special features. He suggests a number of questions:
What is the purpose of the relationship? The purpose will largely determine its nature and qualities. For instance, the purpose of parent-child and the caseworker-client relationships immediately suggest many differences.
Are both parties on terms of equality, are the benefits resulting from the relationship mutual? They usually are in a friend-friend relationship but not in the teacher-pupil or leader-follower relationship.
Is there an emotional component in the relationship? It is present in the parent-child relationship but absent in the ticket-agent-traveller relationship.
Is it a professional relationship, such as physician-patient, or non-professional, as between friend-friend?
What is the normal duration of the relationship? The teacher-pupil is temporary; friend-friend may be temporary or permanent; the parent-child relationship is lifelong. (Biestek 1961: 5-6)
If we then consider these features with regard to educators (he looks at the casework relationship) then a number of interesting aspects appear. To rephrase Biestek (1961: 6), the educative relationship differs from others on a number of points. It differs from the parent-child relationship in that it is temporary, and the emotional content is not so deep and penetrating. It is unlike a friend-friend relationship in that there is not quite the same degree of mutuality and equality. This is how Biestek op cit. describes it in terms of casework:
The caseworker and the client are fundamentally equal as human beings; but in the casework situation the caseworker is the helping person, while the client is the person receiving help.
The same applies to educators. While there is some mutuality in the exchange – the educator may learn as well as the ‘learner’ – the fundamental focus of the exchange should be the learning of the student or participant.
It is also interesting to look at the emotional content of the exchange. In some teaching situations the interaction may be at an overtly intellectual level; in others an emotional component may be a necessary element for achieving the purpose of the relationship. A common mistake (and one that Biestek falls into) is thinking that teaching and educating are essentially intellectual.
Another interesting dynamic arises out the extent to which both parties are active. It could be said, for example, that arguably most doctor-patient relationships are characterized by a fair degree of passivity on the part of the patient. They are the receivers of the doctor’s services. Patients have to cooperate, but it is the skills and medicines of the doctor that do the curing (Biestek 1961: 6). In contrast, Biestek suggests, ‘In casework the client does more than merely cooperate; he is helped to help himself’. Within the literature of lifelong learning and adult education, this theme is reproduced in discussions of self-direction.
If we go down Biestek’s list when considering what informal educators do then we might conclude that:
The fundamental purpose of the relationship lies in the fostering of learning in the group or the individual that the educator is working with. There are two important elements here as we have seen. First, through the relationships people make they learn about the interests, issues or enthusiasms that have brought them together. For example, an informal educator may encourage a group to take part in an ‘adventure weekend’. As part of that experience the worker may invite them to try canoeing. Because of the relationship they have with the educator, the group is willing to try new activities. The worker may also encourage them to reflect upon the experience and to gain new understandings. Second, a significant part of the learning will be about the experience of relationships themselves. If take our example further, it is quite likely that the educator will ask people to think about the relationships in the group (if they need any encouragement!) – how they work together and treat each other, who takes leadership roles and so on. In other words, people learn about relationship through being in relationship.
There is a strong degree of equality and mutuality involved in the relationship – it should be one where people encounter each other as subjects rather than the educator seeking to act upon the other as an object. This is a point that Freire makes with some force. However, we cannot get away with the fact that as educators we do have some areas of expertise. For informal educators this may well be around the process of learning, an appreciation of the nature of human relationships and human flourishing, and in some subject areas. This is not to deny that our partners in the encounter do not also come with expertise and understanding in particular areas. Indeed, it is important to recognize the encounter as an exchange, a dialogue.
There is a significant emotional content to the relationship. As Salzberger-Wittenberg et al. (1983) have shown, fundamental emotions are involved in learning and run through the relationships of educators and learners. Learning can be painful as well as exciting. Educators, thus, have a particular role to play in creating environments in which powerful feelings of fear and pain can be contained. Informal educators may well try to create places of sanctuary, spaces where people feel safe. One aspect of this is people having some sense that they are away from the things that cause them pain or concern. Here they need educators and the other people in the setting to treat them with respect, to be tolerant, and to give them room. An important feature of this is for educators to acknowledge people’s pain and difficulties, but not to push and prod. Sanctuary doesn’t involve sweeping issues under the carpet, but rather creating the conditions so that people can talk when they are ready. This often involves educators in treading a fine line between quietness and encouraging conversation. Often powerful feelings are contained because people feel they are with someone who is safe, who will not condemn them for the emotions they are experiencing or the things they have done. This brings us squarely to the person and disposition of the educator. As we will see below when we come to discuss Carl Rogers’ exploration of the core conditions for a helping or learning relationships the ‘realness’, ability to prize and accept, and capacity to appreciate what people may be feeling are of fundamental importance.
A further, key, aspect of such helping or learning relationships is the extent to which transference’ may be present. Freud argued that transference lies at the core of the therapeutic relationship but it also can be a significant part of educative relationships. In therapy it entails patients placing ‘the intense feelings associated with parents and other authority figures’ onto the therapist (Tennant 1997: 23-4).
We mean a transference of feelings on to the person of the doctor, since we do not believe that the situation in the treatment could justify the development of such feelings. We suspect, upon the contrary, that the whole readiness for these feelings is derived from elsewhere, that they were already present in the patient and, upon the opportunity offered by the analytical treatment, are transferred on to the person of the doctor. (Freud 1973: 494)
In other words, in an educative relationship all sorts of things might be ‘placed upon’ educators. They may come to represent in some way someone else who is significant to the experience of the people they are working with. Exploring how people see us educators may well give us some clues about people’s other relationships.
We need to attend to our role. Informal educators may be specially trained and paid to work with individuals and groups, or they may be an educator by virtue of the relationships they have. Parents, for example, often teach their children, or join with them in ‘learning’ conversations. This involves them in establishing and maintaining a role as an educator. However, this is often more easily said than achieved. Many professional informal educators, for example, operate in settings where they have to work very hard at being recognized first and foremost as educators. The agency may well employ them as, say, a key worker within a hostel or day centre. As such they may well be drawing upon an understanding of a role derived from social work or care management. Similar conflicts can arise within youth work, community development and other agencies. There is a further struggle in terms of working with the project participant or client. They may well come to the group or the setting not recognizing it as an educational setting. For example, they may have wanted to take part in a particular activity or interest such as a sport or some sort of creative arts. Deepening their abilities in football, say, may well be part of their agenda, but they may well not see the worker in the group as an educator. What we have here is a classic question of role. The educator is seeking to establish themselves in that role – and they need that role to be accepted by others if they are to function.
One further thing needs noting here. The behaviour that is directed at us may well derive from the way people see and experience our role, rather than the people we are. In a community group we may get abused because we ask questions about the way money is being handled. These questions can arise directly from our role with the group (as informal educators we are committed to certain values e.g. around justice and truth, and to furthering and deepening associational life). Some of the abuse may come because of the way we ask questions (i.e. the person we are in the situation); sometimes there may be transference (see above); but often it is the role that is the issue.
For professional informal educators relationships are mostly temporary. Indeed, they can be very short – just one encounter. However, in some working situations, such as in a school, club or project the relationship may exist over a number of years.
Relationship as a catalyst
Helen Harris Perlman argues that what we call ‘relationship’ is ‘a catalyst, an enabling dynamism in the support, nurture, and freeing of people’s energies and motivations toward solving problems and using help’ (1979: 2). She is guided by two propositions. That:
The emotional bond that unifies two (or more) people around some shared concern is charged with enabling, facilitative powers.
In an increasing anomic and depersonalised world, there may be potential humanizing value in even brief and task-focused encounters between one person and another. An understanding, emphatic relationship contributes to a person’s sense of inner security and alliance with their peers. (ibid.: 2-3).
The fact that someone is prepared to ‘share’ our worries and concerns, to be with us when we are working at something can be very significant. It can reduce the feeling that we are alone and that the tasks we face are so huge. Their pleasure in our achievements or concern for our hurt can motivate us to act. Crucially, their valuing of us as people can help us to discover the worth in ourselves, and the belief that we can change things. Relationships can animate, breathe life into situations.
Relationships are obviously not all that we need. It is not at all a substitute for the opportunities and material things people need in order to flourish. But it is an essential accompanying condition, ‘because it is the nourisher and mover of the human being’s wish and will to use the resources provided and the powers within himself to fulfil his personal and social-well-being’ (Perlman 1979: 11).
Relationships that facilitate learning
Carl Rogers once wrote, ‘The facilitation of significant learning rests upon certain attitudinal qualities that exist in the personal relationship between facilitator and learner’(1990: 305). He highlights three significant qualities or attitudes that facilitate learning:
Realness in the facilitator of learning. Perhaps the most basic of these essential attitudes is realness or genuineness. When the facilitator is a real person, being what she is, entering into a relationship with the learner without presenting a front or a façade, she is much more likely to be effective. This means that the feelings that she is experiencing are available to her, available to her awareness, that she is able to live these feelings, be them, and able to communicate if appropriate. It means coming into a direct personal encounter with the learner, meeting her on a person-to-person basis. It means that she is being herself, not denying herself.
Prizing, acceptance, trust. There is another attitude that stands out in those who are successful in facilitating learning… I think of it as prizing the learner, prizing her feelings, her opinions, her person. It is a caring for the learner, but a non-possessive caring. It is an acceptance of this other individual as a separate person, having worth in her own right. It is a basic trust - a belief that this other person is somehow fundamentally trustworthy… What we are describing is a prizing of the learner as an imperfect human being with many feelings, many potentialities. The facilitator’s prizing or acceptance of the learner is an operational expression of her essential confidence and trust in the capacity of the human organism.
Empathetic understanding. A further element that establishes a climate for self-initiated experiential learning is emphatic understanding. When the teacher has the ability to understand the student’s reactions from the inside, has a sensitive awareness of the way the process of education and learning seems to the student, then again the likelihood of significant learning is increased…. [Students feel deeply appreciative] when they are simply understood – not evaluated, not judged, simply understood from their own point of view, not the teacher’s. (Rogers 1967)
As we have discussed elsewhere (see Carl Rogers, the core conditions and informal education) his third condition 'empathetic understanding' does raise a number of problems. Rogers emphasizes achieving a full an understanding of the other person as is possible. Here we might argue that in conversation, the task is not so much to enter and understand the other person, as to work for understanding and commitment. This is not achieved simply by getting into the shoes of another. Conversation involves working to bring together the insights and questions of the different parties; it entails the fusion of a number of perspectives, not the entering into of one (Gadamer 1979: 271-3). However, the core conditions that Carl Rogers identifies are a very helpful starting point for considering the attitude or orientation of informal educators in relationships.
Conclusion
In this piece we have seen how relationship is both a medium through which informal educators work, and a state that they want to foster. Being in relationship allows us to flourish. It involves an emotional connection with another and can animate us.
Relationship is a human being’s feeling or sense of emotional bonding with another. It leaps into being like an electric current, or it emerges and develops cautiously when emotion is aroused by and invested in someone or something and that someone or something “connects back” responsively. We feel “related” when we feel at one with another (person or object) in some heartfelt way (Perlman 1979: 23)
Informal educators should not just be concerned with the way in which one individual relates to another, they should also look to the group and the life of the association. In other words, their concern with relationship isn’t an individual affair. It links to a concern to work so that all may share in a common life. As Richard Bernstein once put it, it is important ‘to try and try again to foster and nurture those forms of communal life in which dialogue, conversation, phronesis, practical discourse, and judgment are concretely embodied in our everyday practices’ (Bernstein 1983: 229).
Further reading and references
Biestek, F. P. (1961) The Casework Relationship, London: Unwin University Books. 149 pages. Classic exploration with an opening chapter on the essence of the casework relationship and then a discussion of what Biestek sees as the seven principles of the casework relationship: individualization, purposeful expression of feelings, controlled emotional involvement, acceptance, non-judgemental attitude, client self-determination, confidentiality.
Perlman, H. H. (1979) Relationship. The heart of helping people, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rogers (1967) ‘The interpersonal relationship in the facilitation of learning’ reprinted in H. Kirschenbaum and V. L. Henderson (eds.) (1990) The Carl Rogers Reader, London: Constable, pages 304-311.
Salzberger-Wittenberg, I., Henry, G. and Osborne, E. (1983) The Emotional Experience of Learning and Teaching, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 155 + xii pages. One of the few books to tackle the subject at any length. Written by a group of writers attached to the Tavistock Clinic, the book examines the nature of the relationship between the student and the teacher and the emotions involved.
References
Bernstein, R.R. J. (1983) Beyond Objectivism and Relativism. Science, hermeneutics and praxis, Oxford: Blackwell.
Buber, M. (1958) I and Thou 2e, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Translation: R. Gregory Smith.
Duck, S. (1999) Relating to Others 2e, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Gadamer, H-G. (1979) Truth and Method 2e, London: Sheed and Ward.
Goetschius, G. W. and Tash, M. J. (1967) Working with Unattached Youth. Problem, approach, method, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Perlman, H. H. (1979) Relationship. The heart of helping people, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rogers (1967) ‘The interpersonal relationship in the facilitation of learning’ reprinted in H. Kirschenbaum and V. L. Henderson (eds.) (1990) The Carl Rogers Reader, London: Constable, pages 304-311.
Tennant, M. (1997) Psychology and Adult Learning, London: Routledge.
Vermes, P. (1988) Buber, London: Peter Halban.
How to cite this piece: Smith, M. K. (2001) 'Relationship' in the encyclopaedia of informal education [www.infed.org/biblio/relationship.htm. Last update: October 01, 2008 ].
Acknowledgements: the picture of the Amish figurines is by Philip Sasser 2004 and is used under licence from stock.xchng. All rights reseserved.
© Mark K. Smith 2001
What is a relationship, and what special qualities are present in informal education? We suggest that the focus on learning, mutuality and the emotional bond between people are important features of the sorts of relationships that informal educators are involved in.
Contents: introduction · relationship for starters · some features of relationships · relationship as a catalyst · relationships that facilitate learning · conclusion · further reading and references · links
There is, and has been, a lot of talk about relationship in youth work and informal education. Two themes emerge with some regularity. These are:
Education for relationship. The ability to develop good and satisfying interpersonal relationships is seen as the main, or a major reason for fostering learning. This has been one of the main themes lying behind many informal educators concern with social education.
Education through relationship. Our relationships are a fundamental source of learning. By paying attention to the nature of the relationship between educators and learners, it is argued, we can make a significant difference. In particular, the quality of the relationship deeply influences the hopefulness required to remain curious and open to new experiences, and the capacity to see connections and discover meanings (Salzberger-Wittenberg et al. 1983: ix).
Here we are going to explore what we mean by ‘relationship’, some particular features of the relationships involving informal educators, relationship as a catalyst and the facilitative qualities of relationship.
Relationship for starters
Relationship is one of those words often used, but taken for granted. We ‘know’ what it means. We know relationships are important. We know relationships can be difficult. We know relationships can bring great happiness and sadness. But what actually is a relationship in the context of human behaviour?
George Goetschius and Joan Tash (1967: 137), in one of the classic texts of youth work, provide us with a good starting point: ‘A relationship is a connection between two people in which some sort of exchange takes place’. In other words, there is some sort of link between people – and it involves interaction. That connection may be something that we are born into, such as is the case with families, or it might arise out of a particular need. A classic example of the latter can be found in the marketplace. We might want to buy bread, so we look for someone who can sell us it. What is interesting about this is that the two sides have different interests (buying and selling). However, they can come together as their interests are compatible – both can be satisfied. There is advantage to both in the link. We can also see here the nature of the exchange – bread for money. At this sort of level there is at first glance very little emotion involved. As George Goetschius and Joan Tash (1967: 137) again say, a relationship ‘may be verbal, emotional, physical or intellectual, and is often all of these’. They further comment:
It may include an exchange of ideas, skills, attitudes or values, or even the exchange of things – money, tools or food. Relationships ‘happen’ at all times, in all places, in all parts of society, and in all phases of the development of individuals. We are involved in relationships all the time.
It is important to hold onto an appreciation of relationship as something everyday. However, we also need to recognize just how complex even apparently simple relationships such as buying and selling are. They entail cooperation and trust.
Building such cooperation and trust is a fundamental aspect of relationship. We have to work at them. Relationships are things people do, not just have (Duck 1999: 21). This said we should also recognize the contribution of our social instincts. As Matt Ridley (1997: 249) put it, ‘Our minds have been built by selfish genes, but they have been built to be social, trustworthy and cooperative’. He continues:
Matt Ridley - The origins of virtureHumans have social instincts. They come into the world equipped with predispositions to learn how to cooperate, to discriminate the trustworthy from the treacherous, to commit themselves to be trustworthy, to earn good reputations, to exchange goods and information, and to divide labour… Far from being a universal feature of animal life, as Kropotkin believed, this instinctive cooperativeness is the very hallmark of humanity and what sets us apart from other animals. (Ridley 1997: 249)
To this extent, the cultivation of reciprocity, honesty and trust is less about building alien institutions and structures, than creating the conditions for their emergence. Relationships are strongly influenced by context.
Lastly, it is worth making the distinction between personal relationships and social relationships. The former are relationships between two people ‘who cannot be exchanged without changing the nature of the relationship (Duck 1999: 124). An example of this would two people who are ‘best friends’. In contrast, social relationships are where ‘two partners in an interaction could be exchanged and the relationship would be the same’ (op. cit). Here a classic example would be sales assistant and a customer in a shop. Informal educators largely work through personal relationships.
Some features of relationships
Felix P. Biestek (1961) in The Casework Relationship argues that while the many possible interpersonal relationships have similarities, each has its special features. He suggests a number of questions:
What is the purpose of the relationship? The purpose will largely determine its nature and qualities. For instance, the purpose of parent-child and the caseworker-client relationships immediately suggest many differences.
Are both parties on terms of equality, are the benefits resulting from the relationship mutual? They usually are in a friend-friend relationship but not in the teacher-pupil or leader-follower relationship.
Is there an emotional component in the relationship? It is present in the parent-child relationship but absent in the ticket-agent-traveller relationship.
Is it a professional relationship, such as physician-patient, or non-professional, as between friend-friend?
What is the normal duration of the relationship? The teacher-pupil is temporary; friend-friend may be temporary or permanent; the parent-child relationship is lifelong. (Biestek 1961: 5-6)
If we then consider these features with regard to educators (he looks at the casework relationship) then a number of interesting aspects appear. To rephrase Biestek (1961: 6), the educative relationship differs from others on a number of points. It differs from the parent-child relationship in that it is temporary, and the emotional content is not so deep and penetrating. It is unlike a friend-friend relationship in that there is not quite the same degree of mutuality and equality. This is how Biestek op cit. describes it in terms of casework:
The caseworker and the client are fundamentally equal as human beings; but in the casework situation the caseworker is the helping person, while the client is the person receiving help.
The same applies to educators. While there is some mutuality in the exchange – the educator may learn as well as the ‘learner’ – the fundamental focus of the exchange should be the learning of the student or participant.
It is also interesting to look at the emotional content of the exchange. In some teaching situations the interaction may be at an overtly intellectual level; in others an emotional component may be a necessary element for achieving the purpose of the relationship. A common mistake (and one that Biestek falls into) is thinking that teaching and educating are essentially intellectual.
Another interesting dynamic arises out the extent to which both parties are active. It could be said, for example, that arguably most doctor-patient relationships are characterized by a fair degree of passivity on the part of the patient. They are the receivers of the doctor’s services. Patients have to cooperate, but it is the skills and medicines of the doctor that do the curing (Biestek 1961: 6). In contrast, Biestek suggests, ‘In casework the client does more than merely cooperate; he is helped to help himself’. Within the literature of lifelong learning and adult education, this theme is reproduced in discussions of self-direction.
If we go down Biestek’s list when considering what informal educators do then we might conclude that:
The fundamental purpose of the relationship lies in the fostering of learning in the group or the individual that the educator is working with. There are two important elements here as we have seen. First, through the relationships people make they learn about the interests, issues or enthusiasms that have brought them together. For example, an informal educator may encourage a group to take part in an ‘adventure weekend’. As part of that experience the worker may invite them to try canoeing. Because of the relationship they have with the educator, the group is willing to try new activities. The worker may also encourage them to reflect upon the experience and to gain new understandings. Second, a significant part of the learning will be about the experience of relationships themselves. If take our example further, it is quite likely that the educator will ask people to think about the relationships in the group (if they need any encouragement!) – how they work together and treat each other, who takes leadership roles and so on. In other words, people learn about relationship through being in relationship.
There is a strong degree of equality and mutuality involved in the relationship – it should be one where people encounter each other as subjects rather than the educator seeking to act upon the other as an object. This is a point that Freire makes with some force. However, we cannot get away with the fact that as educators we do have some areas of expertise. For informal educators this may well be around the process of learning, an appreciation of the nature of human relationships and human flourishing, and in some subject areas. This is not to deny that our partners in the encounter do not also come with expertise and understanding in particular areas. Indeed, it is important to recognize the encounter as an exchange, a dialogue.
There is a significant emotional content to the relationship. As Salzberger-Wittenberg et al. (1983) have shown, fundamental emotions are involved in learning and run through the relationships of educators and learners. Learning can be painful as well as exciting. Educators, thus, have a particular role to play in creating environments in which powerful feelings of fear and pain can be contained. Informal educators may well try to create places of sanctuary, spaces where people feel safe. One aspect of this is people having some sense that they are away from the things that cause them pain or concern. Here they need educators and the other people in the setting to treat them with respect, to be tolerant, and to give them room. An important feature of this is for educators to acknowledge people’s pain and difficulties, but not to push and prod. Sanctuary doesn’t involve sweeping issues under the carpet, but rather creating the conditions so that people can talk when they are ready. This often involves educators in treading a fine line between quietness and encouraging conversation. Often powerful feelings are contained because people feel they are with someone who is safe, who will not condemn them for the emotions they are experiencing or the things they have done. This brings us squarely to the person and disposition of the educator. As we will see below when we come to discuss Carl Rogers’ exploration of the core conditions for a helping or learning relationships the ‘realness’, ability to prize and accept, and capacity to appreciate what people may be feeling are of fundamental importance.
A further, key, aspect of such helping or learning relationships is the extent to which transference’ may be present. Freud argued that transference lies at the core of the therapeutic relationship but it also can be a significant part of educative relationships. In therapy it entails patients placing ‘the intense feelings associated with parents and other authority figures’ onto the therapist (Tennant 1997: 23-4).
We mean a transference of feelings on to the person of the doctor, since we do not believe that the situation in the treatment could justify the development of such feelings. We suspect, upon the contrary, that the whole readiness for these feelings is derived from elsewhere, that they were already present in the patient and, upon the opportunity offered by the analytical treatment, are transferred on to the person of the doctor. (Freud 1973: 494)
In other words, in an educative relationship all sorts of things might be ‘placed upon’ educators. They may come to represent in some way someone else who is significant to the experience of the people they are working with. Exploring how people see us educators may well give us some clues about people’s other relationships.
We need to attend to our role. Informal educators may be specially trained and paid to work with individuals and groups, or they may be an educator by virtue of the relationships they have. Parents, for example, often teach their children, or join with them in ‘learning’ conversations. This involves them in establishing and maintaining a role as an educator. However, this is often more easily said than achieved. Many professional informal educators, for example, operate in settings where they have to work very hard at being recognized first and foremost as educators. The agency may well employ them as, say, a key worker within a hostel or day centre. As such they may well be drawing upon an understanding of a role derived from social work or care management. Similar conflicts can arise within youth work, community development and other agencies. There is a further struggle in terms of working with the project participant or client. They may well come to the group or the setting not recognizing it as an educational setting. For example, they may have wanted to take part in a particular activity or interest such as a sport or some sort of creative arts. Deepening their abilities in football, say, may well be part of their agenda, but they may well not see the worker in the group as an educator. What we have here is a classic question of role. The educator is seeking to establish themselves in that role – and they need that role to be accepted by others if they are to function.
One further thing needs noting here. The behaviour that is directed at us may well derive from the way people see and experience our role, rather than the people we are. In a community group we may get abused because we ask questions about the way money is being handled. These questions can arise directly from our role with the group (as informal educators we are committed to certain values e.g. around justice and truth, and to furthering and deepening associational life). Some of the abuse may come because of the way we ask questions (i.e. the person we are in the situation); sometimes there may be transference (see above); but often it is the role that is the issue.
For professional informal educators relationships are mostly temporary. Indeed, they can be very short – just one encounter. However, in some working situations, such as in a school, club or project the relationship may exist over a number of years.
Relationship as a catalyst
Helen Harris Perlman argues that what we call ‘relationship’ is ‘a catalyst, an enabling dynamism in the support, nurture, and freeing of people’s energies and motivations toward solving problems and using help’ (1979: 2). She is guided by two propositions. That:
The emotional bond that unifies two (or more) people around some shared concern is charged with enabling, facilitative powers.
In an increasing anomic and depersonalised world, there may be potential humanizing value in even brief and task-focused encounters between one person and another. An understanding, emphatic relationship contributes to a person’s sense of inner security and alliance with their peers. (ibid.: 2-3).
The fact that someone is prepared to ‘share’ our worries and concerns, to be with us when we are working at something can be very significant. It can reduce the feeling that we are alone and that the tasks we face are so huge. Their pleasure in our achievements or concern for our hurt can motivate us to act. Crucially, their valuing of us as people can help us to discover the worth in ourselves, and the belief that we can change things. Relationships can animate, breathe life into situations.
Relationships are obviously not all that we need. It is not at all a substitute for the opportunities and material things people need in order to flourish. But it is an essential accompanying condition, ‘because it is the nourisher and mover of the human being’s wish and will to use the resources provided and the powers within himself to fulfil his personal and social-well-being’ (Perlman 1979: 11).
Relationships that facilitate learning
Carl Rogers once wrote, ‘The facilitation of significant learning rests upon certain attitudinal qualities that exist in the personal relationship between facilitator and learner’(1990: 305). He highlights three significant qualities or attitudes that facilitate learning:
Realness in the facilitator of learning. Perhaps the most basic of these essential attitudes is realness or genuineness. When the facilitator is a real person, being what she is, entering into a relationship with the learner without presenting a front or a façade, she is much more likely to be effective. This means that the feelings that she is experiencing are available to her, available to her awareness, that she is able to live these feelings, be them, and able to communicate if appropriate. It means coming into a direct personal encounter with the learner, meeting her on a person-to-person basis. It means that she is being herself, not denying herself.
Prizing, acceptance, trust. There is another attitude that stands out in those who are successful in facilitating learning… I think of it as prizing the learner, prizing her feelings, her opinions, her person. It is a caring for the learner, but a non-possessive caring. It is an acceptance of this other individual as a separate person, having worth in her own right. It is a basic trust - a belief that this other person is somehow fundamentally trustworthy… What we are describing is a prizing of the learner as an imperfect human being with many feelings, many potentialities. The facilitator’s prizing or acceptance of the learner is an operational expression of her essential confidence and trust in the capacity of the human organism.
Empathetic understanding. A further element that establishes a climate for self-initiated experiential learning is emphatic understanding. When the teacher has the ability to understand the student’s reactions from the inside, has a sensitive awareness of the way the process of education and learning seems to the student, then again the likelihood of significant learning is increased…. [Students feel deeply appreciative] when they are simply understood – not evaluated, not judged, simply understood from their own point of view, not the teacher’s. (Rogers 1967)
As we have discussed elsewhere (see Carl Rogers, the core conditions and informal education) his third condition 'empathetic understanding' does raise a number of problems. Rogers emphasizes achieving a full an understanding of the other person as is possible. Here we might argue that in conversation, the task is not so much to enter and understand the other person, as to work for understanding and commitment. This is not achieved simply by getting into the shoes of another. Conversation involves working to bring together the insights and questions of the different parties; it entails the fusion of a number of perspectives, not the entering into of one (Gadamer 1979: 271-3). However, the core conditions that Carl Rogers identifies are a very helpful starting point for considering the attitude or orientation of informal educators in relationships.
Conclusion
In this piece we have seen how relationship is both a medium through which informal educators work, and a state that they want to foster. Being in relationship allows us to flourish. It involves an emotional connection with another and can animate us.
Relationship is a human being’s feeling or sense of emotional bonding with another. It leaps into being like an electric current, or it emerges and develops cautiously when emotion is aroused by and invested in someone or something and that someone or something “connects back” responsively. We feel “related” when we feel at one with another (person or object) in some heartfelt way (Perlman 1979: 23)
Informal educators should not just be concerned with the way in which one individual relates to another, they should also look to the group and the life of the association. In other words, their concern with relationship isn’t an individual affair. It links to a concern to work so that all may share in a common life. As Richard Bernstein once put it, it is important ‘to try and try again to foster and nurture those forms of communal life in which dialogue, conversation, phronesis, practical discourse, and judgment are concretely embodied in our everyday practices’ (Bernstein 1983: 229).
Further reading and references
Biestek, F. P. (1961) The Casework Relationship, London: Unwin University Books. 149 pages. Classic exploration with an opening chapter on the essence of the casework relationship and then a discussion of what Biestek sees as the seven principles of the casework relationship: individualization, purposeful expression of feelings, controlled emotional involvement, acceptance, non-judgemental attitude, client self-determination, confidentiality.
Perlman, H. H. (1979) Relationship. The heart of helping people, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rogers (1967) ‘The interpersonal relationship in the facilitation of learning’ reprinted in H. Kirschenbaum and V. L. Henderson (eds.) (1990) The Carl Rogers Reader, London: Constable, pages 304-311.
Salzberger-Wittenberg, I., Henry, G. and Osborne, E. (1983) The Emotional Experience of Learning and Teaching, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 155 + xii pages. One of the few books to tackle the subject at any length. Written by a group of writers attached to the Tavistock Clinic, the book examines the nature of the relationship between the student and the teacher and the emotions involved.
References
Bernstein, R.R. J. (1983) Beyond Objectivism and Relativism. Science, hermeneutics and praxis, Oxford: Blackwell.
Buber, M. (1958) I and Thou 2e, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Translation: R. Gregory Smith.
Duck, S. (1999) Relating to Others 2e, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Gadamer, H-G. (1979) Truth and Method 2e, London: Sheed and Ward.
Goetschius, G. W. and Tash, M. J. (1967) Working with Unattached Youth. Problem, approach, method, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Perlman, H. H. (1979) Relationship. The heart of helping people, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rogers (1967) ‘The interpersonal relationship in the facilitation of learning’ reprinted in H. Kirschenbaum and V. L. Henderson (eds.) (1990) The Carl Rogers Reader, London: Constable, pages 304-311.
Tennant, M. (1997) Psychology and Adult Learning, London: Routledge.
Vermes, P. (1988) Buber, London: Peter Halban.
How to cite this piece: Smith, M. K. (2001) 'Relationship' in the encyclopaedia of informal education [www.infed.org/biblio/relationship.htm. Last update: October 01, 2008 ].
Acknowledgements: the picture of the Amish figurines is by Philip Sasser 2004 and is used under licence from stock.xchng. All rights reseserved.
© Mark K. Smith 2001
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Disruption Seeks/Creates Cracks in the SILO!
Published Online: October 28, 2008
Published in Print: November 5, 2008
Scholars Discuss 'Disruptive Innovation' in K-12 Education
A latecomer to a panel discussion this week on “disruptive innovation” in K-12 education and health care may have suspected that he or she had entered the wrong room.
The main speaker, Clayton M. Christensen, was talking about the steel industry, not education or health. Then he discussed the automobile, radio, microchip, and software industries.
To Mr. Christensen, a professor at the Harvard Business School, those industries offer profound lessons for K-12 schooling. In every case, the introduction of a new technology led to the upending of the established leaders by upstart entrants, he explained at an Oct. 27 panel discussion at the American Enterprise Institute.
See Also
What technological innovations have changed the way you teach and the way your students learn? Share your experiences in our forum.
Mr. Christensen, the lead author of Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns, said similar changes will soon happen to public school districts, as providers of virtual schooling gradually claim more and more students, starting with those who are poorly served by their current schools.
'No Stupidity'
The book, published last spring and co-authored by Michael B. Horn and Curtis W. Johnson, predicts that those changes will accelerate until, by 2019, roughly half of all high school courses will be taken online. ("Online Education Cast as 'Disruptive Innovation'," May 7, 2008.)
To the roomful of policy experts and educators at the think tank’s luncheon meeting, Mr. Christensen explained that the leading companies did not lose their primacy through their managers’ incompetence. Instead, it was because they obeyed two hallowed principles of business: First, listen to your best customers and give them what they want; and second, invest where the profit margin is most attractive.
Rather, businesses need to be willing to act in ways that may be opposed to their short-term interests, and that lower their costs and simplify their products or services, making them more attractive to a larger pool of potential customers.
“It’s a story with no villains and no stupidity,” noted Frederick M. Hess, the director of education policy studies at the AEI and the moderator of the discussion.
Mr. Horn, who runs Innosight Institute, a think tank in Watertown, Mass., devoted to Mr. Christensen’s theories, was on a panel at the event. Outlining the application to education, he cited Harvard education professor Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences and said “children’s need for customization collides with schools’ imperative for standardization.”
The billions of dollars that have been invested to put computers into schools have failed to make a difference because “we have crammed them into conventional classrooms,” said Mr. Horn.
Schools and students have not been able to reap the benefits of technology, he said, because of the web of constraints—called “interdependencies”—that schools have not been able to escape, including the organization of the school day, the division of learning in academic disciplines, the architecture of school buildings, and the federal, state, and local mandates that educators must obey.
'Customization'
On hand at the Oct. 27 event as the official “responder and raconteur” was education expert Chester E. Finn Jr., the president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute in Washington.
Perhaps to the surprise of some in the audience, Mr. Finn generally agreed with Mr. Christensen’s and Mr. Horn’s arguments.
Mr. Finn, who served in the U.S. Department of Education during the Reagan administration, had two main points of contention. First, he disliked the authors’ reliance on Mr. Gardner’s theories, which, he asserted, are dismissed by “respectable cognitive psychologists.”
On that point, the authors are “wrong, but it doesn’t matter,” he concluded. “Gardner or no, I’m still in favor of greater individualization and customization of education.”
Second, Mr. Finn said, he thinks the authors have underestimated the power of politics to stymie the change in education, because in most cases it is the schools, not the students, that are the purchasers of the new technology-driven forms of education.
That means virtual schools will face “resistance and pushback and hubris, and a sort of smugness” from public education, Mr. Finn said.
As a result, he said, he did not expect regular public schools to become the “main route” for new technologies to be applied to K-12 education.
Mr. Finn added that a more likely route was for charter schools and families to purchase the technology directly, possibly in the form of supplemental private education, perhaps subsidized by philanthropies.
BE THERE!
Committee seeks input from community on Pontiac schools
By DIANA DILLABER MURRAY
Of The Oakland Press
The day after voters decide who they want for president of the United States, a new community advisory committee is asking residents in the Pontiac district to help redesign schools.
This is the first of four forums planned before the advisory committee makes its recommendations and the board makes its decisions for the next school year.
Merging Pontiac Central and Northern into one high school and closing middle and elementary schools are possibilities as school officials reel from another major decline in enrollment and loss of state funds. The district is operating schools for 20,000 students when enrollment this year is down to only about 7,100.
At the same time, school officials want to improve academic programs, with such possibilities as creating magnet middle schools and smaller themed academies within the high school.
The district could have a deficit as high as $6.5 million by June 30, and even more by next school year if major restructuring is not accomplished. The district may lose as much as $8 million in state aid due to an enrollment decline of around 1,000 students. In addition, budgeted revenue from property sales and contract negotiations has not been realized.
The audit for the 2007-08 school year was recently completed by Plante and Moran accountants and will be made public Nov. 10. It should give the district and taxpayers a more clear idea of where the district stands financially.
Acting Superintendent Linda Paramore said two weeks ago that she has initiated an executive order that will cut some costs immediately.
Paramore and the school board also called together the advisory committee for the “Redesign of Pontiac Schools for Instructional Effectiveness and Financial Efficiency” to help ensure the community has a say in the major, and likely controversial, changes that will be made. The committee includes City Council members, business people, representatives of various ethnic groups and various parts of the community, clergy, school administrators and three board members.
Chairman of the advisory committee is board President Damon Dorkins. Chairman of the instructional subcommittee is board Vice President Gill Garrett and the finance subcommittee chairwoman is board Treasurer Karen Cain.
Merging Pontiac Northern and Pontiac Central high schools and closing one of the buildings is a controversial possibility, as is closing one or more neighborhood schools. Therefore, the board wants the decision to be made based on input from the community forums.
School officials hope that closing schools will free up money for improving the educational programs to retain or bring back some students who have left for other districts or charter schools.
This school year the board voted against closing Lincoln Middle School as proposed, and to keep sixth graders in elementary school instead of moving them on to middle school. Data showed test scores indicate sixth graders do better on their MEAP tests in the elementary school environment.
The district also created a district-wide preschool academy to prepare children for kindergarten and a more successful school career with its special programs.
In addition, the board approved a new police authority corps under Security Chief Darryl Cosby, with the goal of creating a safe school environment for learning. The new corps have arrest powers for misdemeanor cases, unlike previous security officers. The specially trained school police authority officers work with two Pontiac police officers who handle felony arrests while school officers handle misdemeanors.
Dorkins and Garrett said the people they have talked to in the community say they understand something has to be done — that buildings have to be closed.
But the Oakland Press readers who commented on the proposal to merge high schools to save money and have improved academic programs are adamantly against the idea.
Contact staff writer Diana Dillaber Murray at (248) 745-4638 or diana.dillaber@oakpress.com.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
INNOVATION CONSTANT: IRRESPECTIVE of Space and Time!
It’s No Time to Forget About Innovation
James Yang
BY its very nature, innovation is inefficient. While blockbusters do emerge, few of the new products or processes that evolve from innovative thinking ultimately survive the test of time. During periods of economic growth, such inefficiencies are chalked up as part of the price of forging into the future.
But these aren’t such times. Wild market gyrations, frozen credit markets and an overall sour economy herald a new round of corporate belt-tightening. Foremost on the target list is anything inefficient. That’s bad news for corporate innovation, and it could spell trouble for years to come, even after the economy turns around.
“To be honest, we had a problem with innovation even before the economic crisis. That’s the reason I wrote my book,” says Judy Estrin, former chief technology officer at Cisco Systems and author of “Closing the Innovation Gap.” “We’re focusing on the short term and we’re not planting the seeds for the future.”
In tough times, of course, many companies have to scale back. But, she says: “To quote Obama, you don’t use a hatchet. You use a scalpel. Leaders need to pick and choose with great care.”
There are important things managers can do to ensure that creative forward-thinking doesn’t go out the door with each round of layoffs. Fostering a companywide atmosphere of innovation — encouraging everyone to take risks and to think about novel solutions, from receptionists to corner-suite executives — helps ensure that the loss of any particular set of minds needn’t spell trouble for the entire company.
She suggests instilling five core values to entrench innovation in the corporate mind-set: questioning, risk-taking, openness, patience and trust. All five must be used together — risk-taking without questioning leads to recklessness, she says, while patience without trust sets up an every-man-for-himself mentality.
In an era of Six Sigma black belts and brown belts, Ms. Estrin urges setting aside certain efficiency measures in favor of what she calls “green-thumb leadership” — a future-oriented management style that understands, and even encourages, taking risks. Let efficiency measures govern the existing “factory farm,” she says, but create greenhouses and experimental gardens along the sides of the farm to nurture the risky investments that likely will take a number of years to bear fruit.
“I’m not suggesting you only cut from today’s stuff and keep the future part untouched,” she says. “You have to balance it.”
Yet even that approach has its drawbacks. Companies that create silos of innovation by designating one group as the “big thinkers” while making others handle day-to-day concerns risk losing their innovative edge if any of the big thinkers leave the company or ultimately must be laid off.
“Innovation has to be embedded in the daily operation, in the entire work force,” says Jon Fisher, a business professor, serial entrepreneur, and author of “Strategic Entrepreneurism,” which advocates building a start-up’s business from the beginning with an eye toward selling the company. “A large acquirer’s interest in a start-up or smaller company is binary in nature: They either want you or they don’t, based on the innovation you have to offer. The best way to foster innovation is to create something, put it to the test, build a good company and then get it under the umbrella of a world-renowned company to move it forward.”
David Thompson, chief executive and co-founder of Genius.com Inc., based in San Mateo, Calif., says that innovation “has a bad name in down times” but that “bad times focus the mind and the best-focused minds in the down times are looking for the opportunities.”
“You do have to batten down the hatches and reduce expenses, but you can’t do it at the expense of the big picture,” Mr. Thompson adds. “You always have to keep in mind the bigger picture that’s coming down the road in two or three years.
“The last thing you want to do with innovation is just throw money at it. It’s a very tricky balance.”
In fact, hard times can be the source of innovative inspiration, says Chris Shipley, a technology analyst and executive producer of the DEMO conferences, where new ideas make their debuts. “Some of the best products and services come out of some of the worst times,” she says. In the early 1990s, tens of millions of dollars had gone down the drain in a futile effort to develop “pen computing” — an early phase of mobile computing — and a recession was shriveling the economic outlook.
Yet the tiny Palm Computing managed to revitalize the entire industry in a matter of months by transforming itself overnight from a software maker into a hardware company.
“Our biggest challenge right now is fear,” she says. “The worst thing that a company can do right now is go into hibernation, into duck-and-cover. If you just sit on your backside and wait for things to get better, they’re not going to. They’re going to get better for somebody, but not necessarily for you.”
HOWARD LIEBERMAN, also a serial entrepreneur and founder of the Silicon Valley Innovation Institute, says innovation breeds effectiveness. It’s not about efficiency, he argues. “Efficiency is for bean counters,” he says. “It’s not for C.E.O.’s or inventors or founders.”
The current economic downturn comes as no surprise to him, he says, because it mirrors the downturn at the time of the dot-com bust. Then and now, the companies that survive are those that keep creativity and innovation foremost.
“Creativity doesn’t care about economic downturns,” Mr. Lieberman says. “In the middle of the 1970s, when we were having a big economic downturn, both Apple and Microsoft were founded. Creative people don’t care about the time or the season or the state of the economy; they just go out and do their thing.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)