Designing for Emergent Learning

Re: Designing for Emergent Learning

by Phillip Rutherford -
Number of replies: 6

Barbara - we have had a great deal of success with, in your words 'designing' the environment so that learning occurs. Not so much in the classroom but certainly in the workplace where the post-training evaluation takes place. We call it 'shaping' because it enables us to re-'shape' the environment in order to take advantage of the learning as it emerges. Our experience is that trying to 'design' the environment actually imposes a barrier and, once the 'design' barrier is hurdled then learning either stops or goes in a different direction. In order to harness this we continually move the bifurcation point so that the pace and direction of learning is in line with our agreed vision.

 

In reply to Phillip Rutherford

Re: Designing for Emergent Learning

by Scott Johnson -

Phillip,

Can you explain 'shaping'? I'm thinking it means adapting or responding to activity in the environment?

In reply to Scott Johnson

Re: Designing for Emergent Learning

by Phillip Rutherford -

Scott - shaping means preparing the environment in such a way that the emergent learning is 'shaped'.

For example, information based activities such as meetings, networks, communities of practice are designed with a specific learning endstate in mind. Conditions for emergent learning such as procedures, policies, long-learning or feedback information and decision making loops (where the emphasis is on accuracy) or short feedback loops (where the emphasis is on avoiding errors) are established and monitored. These long/short feedback loops are important as they not only facilitate a shaped learning environment but incorporate a kind of creative chaos which slows down/speeds up the learning thereby making it more resilient.

We have only used this with employees and as a means of creating robust learning organisations. I don't know how they would go in a pedagogical environment. Intuitively there shouldn't be a problem, and testing it would be interesting.

 

In reply to Phillip Rutherford

Re: Designing for Emergent Learning

by Scott Johnson -

Thanks Phillip,

Like the idea of short and long loops. Was thinking of my last job where short deadlines usually resulted in greater accuracy, but only because it allowed us to refuse distractions and other assignments until finished. That said, it did force us to trim details and I wonder if what we lost fidelity to our "good enough" attitude?

My experience with teams are that we roughly split into 'production' and 'detail' groups with oversight in the middle. This works for doing things but I wonder if it creates a learning space in the sense that people could go beyond automatic activity to actual problem solving?

In reply to Phillip Rutherford

Re: Designing for Emergent Learning

by Roy Williams -

Phillip, shaping is interesting, and works at many levels. 

If you are monitoring events, and shaping conditions, on a dynamic, ongoing basis, we would call that 'designing for emergence'. They key for us (and I guess it might be for you too) is that shaping conditions as part of a dynamic process of 'mutual adaptation' (or mutual co-evolution, in complexity terms) is quite different from 'setting' conditions, which is what we would call prescriptive design, or design for compliance.  

In systems terms, its the difference between creating a design, shutting down the design process, and then starting the event (setting the conditions and outcomes) - on the one hand, or continuing the design process throughout, on an adaptive, dynamic, co-evolutionary basis (shaping the conditions, not outcomes) on the other hand. 

Which means that both the design and the learning have to emerge simultaneously.  In principle, as soon as the design process 'ends', emergence is likely to end or to reduce drastically. 

So ... is there a straightforward way of describing and naming  'design 1' and 'design 2'?  Are they both 'design' (or are neither 'design'?).  

Perhaps the problem is that once we use the term 'design' to try and describe what we are doing, most people think we are talking of design as 'setting' the conditions (in micro-bytes of stone). 

'Heuticulture' (a mashup of heutagogy and horticulture) is the only option I have for this, but it's just too convoluted - I think it's like a joke that needs too much explaining. (Maybe it'll catch on, who knows).

There is a way to approach this that we get from Dave Snowden's work on complexity, management and leadership, namely to turn the design process upside down, which achieves much the same thing - viz: design by specifying the negative conditions (what should not happen) rather than the positive conditions (what should happen) in learning - as far as is possible.  

So specifying an outcome state (which might be stable or unstable) rather than specific outcomes might suffice too, no?  

In reply to Roy Williams

Re: Designing for Emergent Learning

by Phillip Rutherford -

Roy,

I like a lot of what Snowden says, particularly his thoughts on knowledge management, but my experience is slightly different. I am more in the camp of Clancy or Shaw who see compexity and emergence as forever iterative simply because the act of change creates each time a different platform from which to launch further change.

As for your comments about 'heuticulture' - I had to laugh. Although I suspect that horticulture still requires a certain 'hands on' approach from the master gardener. Had you thought of the Lamarkian biology?

I am also of two minds with the 'creation' and 'shutting down' of design. Isn't it the aim of emergent learning that learning never starts - nor stops? That learning is because it is? (How Kantian of me.) I don't know, but it sounds like something that is perhaps better discussed over a good red wine :-)

Phil

 

In reply to Phillip Rutherford

Re: Designing for Emergent Learning

by Roy Williams -

Phillip, key texts / ideas from Clancy or Shaw?  Tell me more, please.  I agree that emergence is forever iterative, and have written extensively on affordances in much the same light (see here ... ).

Horticulture is possibly more 'hands on', but I take my cue from Montessori education, in which 'hands off' (and silent demonstration) are key. So a mashup of the two, perhaps. 

I had not realised that Lamark forumulated the idea of evolution pushing biology 'up the chain' of complexity, and in effect countering the hegemony of physics, and the widespread epidemic of 'physics envy' that is still prevalent in social science, and in learning research.  The misapplication of the second law of themodynamics has a lot to answer for. 

I'll join you in the red wine conversation - always a useful prop to have for emergent learning. 

Design - sure, I only realised recently (perhaps I should have read more Kant, and less Barthes) that the discouse of design is largely colonised by people who see it as something that ends before the learning starts. Emegent learning, emergent design, co-evolution of structure and agency, or should we just say co-evolution of design and learning - that feels much better to me, maybe we should change the name of the first quadrant to that Design/Learning?