Gary,
I wonder if a key difference between our approaches relates to your use of the word 'instruction'. When working with managers in this way I do not see myself as giving instruction or even as an expert on 'the one best way'. Actually I tend to be very suspicious when any one starts talking about 'best practice'. Rather I see myself as working in partnership with them to figure out what is going to work well in their own situation. A key element in providing this support is creating an environment in which they can feel comfortable critiquing their own practice. Looking objectively at the problems in someone else's practice especially with some degree of humour involved is a useful bridge to examining your own practice in collaboration with peers.
Do I think that academic models and theories about interpersonal interaction can be helpful? Yes - up to a point; so long as we don't assume that the point of learning is to know the models. At best such models provide a supporting scaffold for the learning which goes on in their day to day practice as managers. Ken's point about generalisation is very germane here - the contexts in which these managers will have to deliver feedback will vary a great deal and developing the expertise to act skilfully in many different contexts will not happen in the classroom. What can happen though is to engage them in a thoughtful dialogue about their own and others practice which can provide a foundation for building skill over time. At the end of our one week programme these managers create a 6 month action plan which we follow up with them. The time in the classroom and small group exercises is mostly to set up the learning that goes on in the workplace over a 6 month period (and hopefully beyond).
Do I seek to ensure that what I do is founded on good principles of learning design - of course. It may be though that the literatures and influences I am drawing on are somewhat different to yours. There are I know some interesting differences in approach to designing learning (we tend not to use the word instruction) between the UK and the USA.
Thank you though for initiating this discussion I have found it very interesting
Best regards
Mark
Mark Fenton-O'Creevy
Professor of Organisational Behaviour
Director, Centre for Practice-Based Professional Learning and National Teaching Fellow
Open University
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes MK7 6AA
United Kingdom
e-mail:
m.p.fenton-ocreevy@open.ac.uk
(DL) +44 (0)1908-655804
Fax: +44 (0)1908-655898
-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:
MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary Lear
Sent: 28 October 2009 19:55
To:
MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Film clips on giving feedback
Ken,
Yes, the next time I am over at the college at a time when the library is open I
will stop in and see about getting a copy of the article. Just understand that
its not going to be any time soon, and I'm not scheduled to teach there again
until January.
I understand that in the previous study you shared that they say that they
control some of the variables, such as total number of models; but how? As I
shared, a single model versus multiple models will either provide for a shorter
course or a change in instructional design. And it still doesn't seem to deal
with the issue at hand, which is: should we show bad models first and then good,
or should we show the good models first, and save those bad models for
reinforcing the learning. But we'll save the discussion on this study for
later.
As for the most recent article you provided, while I have only read it quickly,
it appears that this isn't particularly applicable to our discussion, either.
The error that they are discussing in this research is demonstrated by the
students, and not demonstrated by the instructors. And we also have to keep in
mind that all of the training programs in the meta-analysis were concerned with
learning to work with computers, and not interpersonal skills. Once again, I'm
not sure that we aren't comparing apples to eggs (or oranges, if you prefer them
<wink>).
On the other hand, there are a number of applications where an approach that
encouraged students to make errors and learn from them might be used, even in
Mark's particular situation. The obvious would be in the role plays; after all,
isn't that what role plays are for? Another approach might be similar to what
he is trying to do at the onset, but rather than having them watch a video about
bad methodology for feedback, he might have them actually role play up front and
hope that enough will feel uncomfortable to see a reason to learn a better way.
I'm not sure that I would rely on the consistency of that approach, however.
I prefer, instead, to have my students learn the correct way to give feedback
first; model it in class via role plays where they can create errors in a safe
environment and learn from those errors; and then make corrections and try
again. I then have them leave the classroom with homework to go out in the real
world and practice with their employees. They then come back to class and
discuss with their classmates what worked and what didn't, what they learned,
and how they might try things differently. Again, most will have experienced
errors. Off they go again, with another round of homework, and another chance
to create errors and learn from those errors. But that is my approach.
Again, note that I don't have problems with students making errors. I don't
even have a problem with discussing those errors with the rest of the class and
allowing them to analyze those errors and offer better approaches. After all,
that is also teaching good analysis and synthesis skills, as well. But this
analysis is done after they have learned the correct way (at least what I've
determined is the correct way <wink>). I have no problems with students making
errors; it is instructors specifically demonstrating errors prior to teaching
the correct way that I take exception to. That is what mucks up the instruction,
not students making errors. Those I welcome, as it means they are trying.
However, there is nothing that I can find in this current research paper that
indicates that poor modeling by the instructor, either in person or via video
scenarios, at the outset of the program would be a good instructional design
approach. Yes, we do have the Law of Recency on our side, and hope that what we
end up teaching last will be retained (and hopefully what we taught last was
right). But as I shared before, both Primacy and Recency are very powerful, and
I would prefer to have them both on my side.
But then again, others will make other choices. The one thing that I believe
also has a factor in effective instructional delivery is that those delivering
the instruction have to have confidence in their instructional design. I would
just encourage that we would insure that it is founded on some good
instructional design methodology and not just on what we've seen others do or
solely on what we are comfortable with.
Does that make sense?
Make a Great Day!
Gary Lear, President & CEO
Author of Leadership Lessons From the Medicine Wheel: The Seven Elements of High
Performance
Resource Development Systems LLC
Managing the Human Side of Business (sm)
gelear@rds-net.com www.ResourceDevelopmentSystems.com
(c) 2009 permission denied to use this post in any other forum or in any way
other than on the discussion list that it was originally posted.
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).