Wednesday, 15 April 2015

Subjectives instead of Objectives - my notes from Week 1 Rhizo15

Week 1 (Starting Wednesday 15th of April 2015.
Video from Dave Cormier ("facilitator" for Rhizo15)
Talking about Learning Subjectives as opposed to Learning Objectives, world is an uncertain place, right answers only occur in story books, so how to provide enough structure so that people can know what we are talking about.
Take a Learning Subjective and state what it means.
Link in post to:
Confessions of a worried teacher with the idea of using Emergent Outcomes instead. Intent of LOs (Intended - ILOs) is good (Biggs developed this?) but "it all too readily becomes a closed circuit".
"Emergent outcomes are conducive, I feel, to the connectivist approach and rhizomatic learning in that knowledge and learning are seen to emerge from the context of learning or practice."

(Below from Emergent Learning Outcomes Aberystwyth University by Elena Korosteleva and Giles Polglase, 1 October 2011).
Emergent Outcomes from Hussey and Smith's model of emergent learning outcomes (ELOs); compare with ILOs and also Ipsative LOs (student defined). So (at least) three LOs at play.

"Learning fulcrum" exists whereby intended learning outcomes, ipsative learning outcomes, and emergent learning outcomes needs to be balanced. (Why? There are levels of satisfaction in each - if these are reached in ILOs and IpLOs, then all is well).

Difference between Objectives and Outcomes?
To me Objectives are what you set out before starting and Outcomes are the results, what happens after the event. Adding "Intended" in front of Outcomes confuses the process. Rather work with Objectives to start with.

Then, is an ipsative learning objective/outcome a Subjective? I like this term...

Objectives and Subjectives are different from Emergent ones - doesn't "emergent" imply after the activity has started? In other words, there are Emergent Objectives and Emergent Subjectives, which come to light whilst the activity(ies) is under way.

Do these terms work?

Friday, 10 April 2015

Leadership - Federman's definition of Contemporary Leadership

Sometimes you come across an article or post which resonates deeply. Thank you Mark Federman for waking me up from a blogging slumber and addressing the important yet sometimes ephemeral aspects of leadership.
Things have changed. Attitudes towards hierarchy and motivation are very different now and there are many perspectives on what works. Teams carry out the work because we get better results by working together - empowered members who devise their own collective solutions to problems. But what should a leader be concerned with to enable the best results to be obtained?
I have kept the five main points here (for my reference) but please read the complete article (particularly for the explanation of point 5).

  1. Contemporary leadership is not about “leading.” It’s about creating a very particular environment. 
  2. Contemporary leaders don’t drive for goals. They navigate for intended effects. 
  3. Contemporary leaders base their organizational culture on individual autonomy and agency, collective responsibility, and mutual accountability. 
  4. Contemporary leadership employs strengths-based, appreciative practices. 
  5. Contemporary leaders recognize that one’s work integrates with, rather than balancing in opposition against, one’s life. 
"By removing a considerable amount of pressure imposed by Industrial Age command-and-control precepts of “good management,” organizational leaders can direct their attention towards creating and enabling the optimal environment for their members to engage with one another, achieve personal and mutual aspirations, and have one heck of a good time doing it."