Libertarian Paternalism

I read a book about a month ago (Nudge) that has had me thinking a lot about the issue of choice and how much freedom universities should give to students in making choices about their education.  The idea of "libertarian paternalism" is a way of preserving freedom of choice, but which also allows institutions (such as universities) to encourage individuals to make choices that are more likely to be beneficial for them.  For example, school cafeterias have found that foods placed at eye level are much more likely to be selected than those that might be placed on a lower shelf or display table (I think grocery stores know this as well which is why the expensive name-brand cereals are always at eye level and the cheap store brands are almost on the floor).

This has some interesting implications for Universities and the way we structure our systems.  At times we may be guilty of providing students with so many choices and options that it is complicated at best and overwhelming to the point of paralysis at worst (See The Paradox of Choice, by Barry Schwartz for an interesting discussion of this phenomenon).  An example of this is course registration.  At my institution students must complete a set of "University Core" requirements (just a fancy way of saying "General Education") in order to graduate--an important aspect of the college experience, no doubt.  The problem is that for each of the many Core requirements there is a very long list of courses or complicated table explaining what combinations of courses can meet the requirement.  Many students make poor choices about what courses to enroll in to fill these requirements, often finding themselves in a course they either aren't interested in or one that actually doesn't "count" towards the requirement.   Students are able to meet with advisors to help them make these decisions, but that requires initiative and time, two barriers that keep a lot of students out of the offices of academic advisors (another problem worth exploring in another post).  Hence, students are often left to their own devices, relying upon what they find online, in conversations with friends, etc.  What was intended to be a good thing for students--choice--ends up being a burden that can cause anxiety and ultimately, poor decisions.

Nudge suggests that institutions finding themselves in these situations would do well to think of themselves as "choice architects".  Their role is to preserve freedom of choice, but to design the process of "choosing" in a way that both informs and assists individuals in making wise choices.  What if universities were to design templates that were the default course schedules for students (maybe even just during their first few semesters while they are getting their feet wet).  Students could opt out of these templates and design their own schedule, but the default would be a good fit (albeit not "perfect") for the majority of the students.  Or, what if there were a tool developed that functioned like Turbo Tax?  Students would be asked a series of questions about their interests, AP Credit, future job aspirations, etc. and based on the information they input the program would suggest a small number of possible schedules from which the student could choose.  This would preserve their choice, but help them narrow the field to a manageable number of "good" choices.

Doing "Good" Research

"Progress in science arises from the application of an informed imagination to a problem of genuine consequence; not by the monotonous application of some formulaic mode of inquiry to a set of quasi-problems."  

-Daniel Robinson, Paradigms and "the myth of framework"

A faculty member teaching the empirical inquiry class that I am enrolled in this semester shared that quote with us this week as a foundation for a discussion about research and how we can make decisions about the types of questions and problems we tackle in our work.  We also discussed the importance of avoiding the tendency of shying away from difficult questions, even though they may be the most important questions we could seek to answer.  Too often researchers choose to address "easy" questions because of the promise of publications, a longer vitae, etc.

This is all a fine line because judgments about what constitutes "problems of genuine consequence" are very subjective and probably only appropriate for individual researchers to make.  However, that practice of examining the impact of our work seems appropriate and needed.  We have all seen examples of research that addresses quasi-problems and that is only read by the researcher, his mother (although she probably doesn't understand it), and a close circle of professional colleagues; I won't take any time to describe what I believe might fall into those categories.  But, I have seen a number of excellent examples of "good" research here on my campus (Brigham Young University) that I believe makes a tremendous contribution to the body of scholarly work.  More importantly, these projects seem to have been initiated and carried out because of the promise that they hold for improving human lives.  Below are some links to just a few:

Student-designed device to help poor East Africans coax oil from coconuts

http://byunews.byu.edu/archive08-jul-tanzania.aspx  

The merry-go-round that makes electricity from kid power

http://byunews.byu.edu/archive08-jun-ghana.aspx

More nutritious tortillas – BYU research team shares method with Mexico’s neighborhood tortilla shops

http://byunews.byu.edu/archive08-nov-tortillas.aspx

Institutional Values

Part of my work at the University involves planning and coordinating New Student Orientation events for incoming students which has been an interesting task for me because it has helped me be more reflective about the implicit messages that we as a University send to students.  Colleagues of mine have helped me understand the importance of "bookends" in students' university experience, in other words the events at the beginning and end of their time on campus.  New Student Orientation seems to be one of these critical bookends and an opportunity to help students catch a vision that can carry them through the rest of their educational career on our campuses.  

This idea of the big picture is something that I gleaned from the work of Jean Lave & Etienne Wenger in their book Situated Learning:  Legitimate peripheral participation.  In it they explore the utility of an "apprenticeship model" in terms of learning.  The book examines a number of case studies (Yucatec Midwives, West African Tailors, Navy Quartermasters, Retail Meat Markets, and Alcoholics Anonymous) and identifies the aspects of those settings that help or hinder learning.  One theme that I saw emerging from each of those studies was that the best learning occurred when learners were able to develop a clear vision of what a good performance looks like whether that was a well-tailored suit, a successful delivery, or a fully recovered alcoholic.  

In many ways New Student Orientation can help new students develop this vision of "what can be" or what they can become during their University experience.  Sadly, we often approach orientation activities from one of two perspectives (1) a very technical business model or (2) the social/party model.

The Technical Approach:  In the technical approach we use orientation as a venue for communicating large amounts of information to students (e.g. registration policies, graduation requirements, housing policies, etc.) or as a way of helping them complete a number of orientation tasks (e.g. obtaining a parking permit, registering for classes, purchasing textbooks, etc.).  The objective here seems to be running students through the system so that they can complete as many "errands" as possible and be ready to begin classes.  While there is undoubtedly a place for these sorts of things in an orienation program, if all a student does during Orientation weekend is stand in lines, complete online forms, and engage in transactional interactions there is a danger that they will perceive the University as a mill where students go through the motions in order to check off a set of well defined tasks.

The Party or Social Approach:  In this model orientation is a big party where students attend dances, take tours, watch sporting events, and make friends.  The goal  here is to help students make social connections and to show them a good time so their first experience on campus is a positive one.  Again, not a bad thing--literature suggests that meaningful social connections pay big dividends in retention rates and overall learning gains.  However, there are two problems with an orientation that makes this its focus.  First, it may be a little naive to assume that large group activities facilitate the formation of the meaningful relationships that are referred to in the literature.  While this may happen occasionally, it is more likely that those relationships that persist through the first year are those that were formed in small, informal interactions occurring in the residence halls, among members of student groups/clubs, etc.  Secondly, if orientation is nothing more than a big party we run the risk of leaving students with the impression that college is a party--fun and games with the occasional late night of cramming for an exam.

A Better Way:  What if orientation became a way to help students develop the "big picture" referred to in Lave & Wenger's work?  What messages could orientation send in terms of academic expectations, institutional culture, etc.?  It is my feeling that campus administrators can design orientation experiences that communicate these messages while also allowing for the "business" and social connections to take place.  The key is in being thoughtful about the experiences that we provide for students and the values that are embedded in these experiences (as a side note, training of orientation leaders becomes critical here because they are likely to communicate a great deal about implicit institutional values in the informal conversations they have with students during orientation).  This can be challenging because the temptation is to pack students into the basketball arena and talk at them.  While this simplifies things from a logistic standpoint, very little learning takes place for students and they are left worn out from a weekend of lectures from high minded university administrators.  We have a responsibility as orientation professionals to find ways to engage students in active learning during orientation activities and to provide environments where they can learn about what it means to be a university student, what is expected of them, and what they can hope to become during their time with us.  

Occasionally I hear from colleagues that 18 year-old students aren't ready to participate in conversations about institutional missions and objectives.  My response to those individuals is that if not now, then when?  If students don't find out about our Aims until their junior year it is too late.  Furthermore, at that point in their educational career they have very little time or motivation to consider things of that nature as graduation deadlines, the MCAT, and law school interviews loom on the horizon.  Orientation is a window of time when students are both receptive to and in need of these conversations.  We are doing them a disservice if we aren't providing a forum for that type of learning to take place.

Finals Review

What are the essential differences between behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism?

·         Behaviorism:  explains learning as a change in behavior due to the presentation of stimuli.  Behaviour adapts in response to those environmental stimuli.  Learning has occurred when the learner displays the correct behavior in response to a particular stimulus. 

**The focus is on overt, observable behaviours—what learners do!

**The goal of instruction is to strengthen the relationship between stimulus and response through the use of performance cues & reinforcement.  

 

·         Cognitivism:  explains learning as a change in mental models or frameworks and the development of encoding & retrieval strategies.  Learning has occurred when the learner can retrieve information that was previously encoded.

**The focus is on internal mental processes—what learners know & how they know it or how it is represented in their mind (mental processes, strategies, etc.)

**The key focus here is changing the learner by helping them use appropriate learning strategies

**The role of the instructor is determining what mental models or structures the learner already possesses and how new knowledge can be introduced and organized in a way that allows the learner to assimilate it--how to help learners organize, store, and retrieve new knowledge.

·         Constructivism:  explains learning as the formation of personal meaning/understanding as a result of lived experiences and reflection upon those experiences.  Learning is an active process and understanding is provisional and dynamic, changing and adapting in response to new experiences, particularly exposure to varied perspectives and new experiences.  

T   The role of the instructor includes helping learners learn to construct or create their own meaning and (2) placing them in authentic environments, performing authentic tasks and (3) providing opportunities to participate in social negotiation (varied perspectives).

**

 

What are the differences between HPT, IT, & LS?

·         Instructional Technology:  Concerned with design and application—designing learning environments and instructional products that improve learning.  Are interested in learning theory inasmuch as it informs practice; however, the ultimate objective is to improve actual learning.

**  Design processes & systems with the goal of improving learning.  

·         Human Performance Technology:  Is strictly concerned with performance and explicit, observable behaviours.  Analyzes performance gaps and then develops interventions for improving performance.  Some interventions might include training; however, HPT takes a much more broad view than IT and includes job aids, rewards/incentives, physical layout of space, etc.

** Develop interventions to improve performance gaps.

·         Learning Sciences:  Concerned with developing theories that describe how learning takes place, rather than dictating how it should take place and making specific recommendations regarding pedagogy or instructional strategies, although these theories might suggest certain strategies.

** Develop conceptual models that help explain and describe learning

 

What is the difference between science & technology?

·         Science:  Is analytic and descriptive.  Seeks to build conceptual models that can explain observed effects.  Asks different questions (e.g. “Why did this happen?”), produces general principles or theories that describe effects in the natural world. 

·         Technology:  Is prescriptive (“synthesis towards a goal”).  Is synthetic in that it builds causal models that can be used to design or develop artifacts (tools, interactions, etc.) that are intended to bring about certain effects.

o   The structuring of space/time to achieve a specified purpose within within the bounds of specified problem constraints and to a predetermined level of criterion.

o   Asks different questions (“how can we make this happen?”)

**Builds causal models that can be used to design tools or processes that are intended to bring about specified effects or outcomes

 

Media vs. Method Debate

·         Clark—Media are just vehicles for delivering instruction and can be separated from method

o   Adheres to the “replaceability test”—if the media can be changed and the same learning is observed then it isn’t the medium but the method that has led to the learning.

o   Argues that research analyzing the influence of media elements on learning haven’t controlled for instructional method and are confounded.

o   Although media elements might have some impact on learning it is the “active ingredient” of method that is the key determinant in the learning that occurs

§  He argues that method is the “active ingredient” because of the replaceability test—e.g. different media with same learning results.

§  The instructional method is embedded within the medium that delivers the instruction

o   Media may influence cost or speed; however only method can influence what is actually learned.

·         Kozma—Media characteristics have an impact upon the mental models and cognitive structures that are formed by learners; thus, media do influence learning.

o   Learners actively collaborate with the instructional medium to construct learning

§  Different learning occurs depending on what medium is used

·         This seems accurate a picture would cause a learner to form a different mental representation than would a verbal definition

o   Method and media cannot be separated all of the time like Clark suggests

§  In good designs they are integrated and have a synergistic effect upon learning

Lean Management

Our conversation in class today about Lean Management was interesting and got me thinking about "production" and "efficiency".  It makes sense to me that HPT professionals in manufacturing settings would be concerned with productivity and would want to avoid waste.  And, on the surface, it seems like anything that doesn't directly impact production would be something that could be improved.  Employee down-time, side conversations, waiting, etc. could be perceived as negatives because all of those things decrease productivity.  

However, the question that I was left with was what impact things like breaks, conversations among co-workers, etc. have on morale and what impact morale has on productivity and effectiveness.  Those are probably difficult things to measure, but I think it might be a mistake to approach productivity from a strictly technical, non-human standpoint.  I guess that from a Human Performance Technology standpoint these sorts of things fall into the category of incenvites/rewards, organizational culture, etc.  All of the efficiencies in the world still don't eliminate the fact that much of manufacturing depends upon human agents and that they can't be treated just like production machines.  

I guess that the challenge in all of this for practitioners is finding that balance between efficiency and practices that promote morale.

Humility & Life-long Learning

One of the things that I have learned as I have listened to the career reports in class is that one of the things that makes a good instructional designer or instructional technologist is humility and a desire to be a life-long learner, both of which I think are closely linked.  

I  noticed that a number of the professionals that have been interviewed how important it is to be well read (some even mentioned being well read outside of your discipline).  They seemed to have a passion for learning and that was one of the things that they enjoyed most about their work--the opportunity to continue learning even after their formal education had ended.

Many of the professionals interviewed also talked about the importance of managing relationships, working with stakeholders, soliciting feedback, etc.  It seems like a certain amount of humility is necessary in all of this because designers are constantly being asked to incorporate the ideas of others into their designs.  An attitude of "I have all of the good ideas" or "No one does it better than I do" could be dangerous in doing this kind of work.  

All of this reminded me of a book that I read over the summer called Learning in the Light of Faith.  It is a collection of essays that were adapted from a lecture series that was offered at BYU back in 1995 and features essays by Pres. Eyring, Pres. Samuelson (before he was affiliated with BYU), Elder Maxwell, and Elder Oaks among others.  The theme of the essays is "disciple-scholarship" and I noticed that every author mentioned humility, meekness, or a related concept as being key in learning.  In another talk by Pres. Eyring (A Child of God, a 1997 Devotional Address) he discusses the attributes of great learners and mentions a willingness to "seek correction" as one of these attributes.   

It has just been interesting to see all of these things coming together and to realize how important this humility and passion for learning is in our field.

Conscience of Craft & Accountability

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/12/04/humanities

This is an article about a meeting that took place at the annual meeting of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges.  The meeting was focused on accountability in the humanities and a common refrain from the faculty that were present was "You can't measure what we teach!".  That got me thinking about the discussions we have had recently about conscience of craft and accountability.  For the record, I don't think that this attitude of "don't assess me because it might mean that I will need to improve something" isn't unique to the field of humanities, for some reason or another they always end up being the whipping boy when it comes to discussions about accountability.   This is a general problem in academia and other work settings--people don't want to be held accountable for their work.  I can understand the argument that outside bodies don't always know what to assess or evaluate, but that can't be an argument for throwing out assessment all together.  If humanities faculty don't want someone else assessing the learning of their students, then they need to step up to the plate and develop their own evaluations and then be able to justify the utility of those evaluations to accrediting bodies, politicians, students paying tuition, etc.