Enhanced Discovery Learning

Peter just posted this on the CESPOC Diigo group:

in the words of http://larryferlazzo.edublogs.org, ‘a “meta-analysis” of hundreds of others: It found that “direct instruction’ was a more effective instructional method than “unassisted discovery learning. “And it found that “enhanced discovery learning” trumped them both.” – http://larryferlazzo.edublogs.org/2011/08/30/is-this-the-most-important-research-study-of-the-year-maybe/

I think this is related to the idea of why open spaces may be so effective in building up the lessons learned in such environments. I should take some time and read more about these sorts of “enhanced discovery learning.” environments.  Ferlazzo also calls this sort of learning “inductive teaching.”  I’ll need to add this ideas to my literature search.

Open Space Ideas @ DERC

So part of my thinking regarding another research project has been around the idea of open spaces and self-organizing groups and how they link to ideas about personal empowerment and community change.  I just interviewed my third teen at DERC today and it is seem clear to me that this space has some profound impacts on the teens there.  All three have talked about the space being welcoming, like family and caring.  At the same time each has articulated a journey of growth as well as expressed some profound ideas about political agency — “I have a voice, ” “I am more tolerant of diverse settings,” and “I’ve come into contact with others I never would have.”

This space is pretty informal in the way it operates, but at the same time it has a lot of the same elements as the 119 Gallery space.  There is a space.  It is open and welcoming.  Individuals there create an atmosphere where you can try and explore.  The staff and space are responsive to individual needs and ideas, but at the same time express interest in the individual growth and development of each teen.  The staff share their own stories and struggles.  There are bonds built.  I need to explore this more, but it was an amazing “ah ha” to me.

Some other things that came to mind as I was driving back from DERC:

  • Programs should capture young people before they are of working age and create a bond for them — having fun things or volunteer “jobs” seem important.
  • There should be ladders of increasing responsibility
  • There should be centers close to the homes and / or schools of teens
  • There should be multiple opportunities — work, academic achievement, chill time, fun learning, etc
  • Duration seems to be key as well

Again the importance of family that engages with the news.  And this brought up an insight about the news:

  • news should link human interest to global problems

Individual Transformation -> Community Change

Starting to download a bunch more literature on the concept of community empowerment.  Thinking about on Evan et al paper from SSSP, I wonder when does individual transformation lead to community change?  What are the mechanism that turn individual interests into community goals.  This brings in some of the reading I was doing on individual motivation which talks about linking individual interests to collective ones.  This is also supported by political theorists like Rousseau.

Each of the youth I’ve interviewed thus far have been able to envision an issue that they care about and envision making change.  The two youth at DERC, talked about the space as helping them appreciate diverse people more and building strong bonds to others.  What does the literature say about that?  In the case of the one youth at FBP who had a more advanced sense of engagement, he had a family history of community service, was connected to the park prior to being a worker, and had spent more years involved in the neighborhood.

I think with the FBP group, the major lesson learned is that the organization provided a positive work environment.  I’m not convinced that they created a stronger sense of change or possibility of change than any other type of work environment.  They did create a greater awareness of park conservation and brought new skills to the group (i.e. using tools, working with others, identifying plants).  The team building activities created a a positive work environment.

So the challenge now is to figure out how the social justice organization youth come to understand their roles, etc.

SSSP Annual Meeting, Identity Movements, and Political Education

Attending the SSSP annual meeting last week was really useful.   I got some help ideas on how to present and structure my own research presentations (i.e. focus on theory and design, connect the two).  I still need to go through the various notes from the conference and pull them into a more cohesive memo.  Perhaps that is what I will do later this week.  There were several literatures referenced that I think would be useful moving forward with my dissertation.  Specifically:

  • community empowerment (reference Krista et a paper in community org and prob session)
  • political education
  • worker education
  • community efficacy
  • life stories of social change folks
  • women’s movement and consciousness raising
  • identity movements (black power, chicano, LBGT)

In many ways youth organizing is very similar to other identity movements where groups or individuals have found themselves without power or voice.  While age is the defining characteristic, this group does not have political power.  So this is more similar to the fight against slavery and the abolitionists.  In some ways this is a different sort of paper here.

What seems to be a key thing to thing about is how personal transformation can lead to political change.  I really need to read the Beyond Resistance book and make more time for reading about some of these things more clearly.

It also occurred to me that there may be additional insights to youth political engagement by looking at the worker education movement and efforts for popular education especially around political education.  I should work now to bring these literatures into my work.

Politics of the Interpersonal

I’m transcribing the interview with JA that I conducted back in December as part of my dissertation research.  As she talks about her service learning class’s work with a middle schoolers at a pilot school, she brings up the concept of “politics of the interpersonal.”  The idea that folks may not become political activists in the traditional sense, but rather a consciousness about power and the cultivating of empathy and empowerment can lead individuals to transform their relationships with other.  So why individuals may not join political campaigns or large social movements, they may treat their children, family members and co-workers differently.  This idea of micro changes combined with macro efforts can have large effects.

In the interview she talks about positive youth development not really addressing the larger social or systemic forces.  At the same time, social justice approaches may not bring in the individual aspects either.  For her, the idea of community youth development seems to combine these micro and marco levels and are guided by social action.

In many ways, this is what the work Peter is engaged in is about.  By working on the processes of individual and group interaction we can change how individuals think and engage in research, their community and the world.  So it seems to me, I should bring these more subtle aspects into my interviews and perspectives.  This makes me think I should read a bit more into the literatures of “social action,” “group dynamics,” and “human development.”  I may find some new ideas to add here that could be useful to thinking about these dynamics.

It also occurred to me that I could use some of the processes and tools from Peter’s workshops for use with TCS project.  “Future Ideal,” “Daily Writing,” “Dialogue Process,” “Story Circles,” and other elements might help here.  I should familiarize myself with more of these tools via the book Peter is working on about research and engagement processes – http://cct.wikispaces.umb.edu/TYS3.

Local governments engaging citizens

Just finished reading Lee Worden’s rundown of the Woods Hole workshop and interestingly I dreamt last night of a group using workshop processes for engagement.  I also had a conversation with Walter last night that triggered the dilemma faced by many local governments and their inability to engaged the public.  What is it about these environments that make this so difficult?  Thinking on the collaborative knowledge workshop I wonder if it has something to do with unequal power arrangements or perhaps it is about lacking the models and capacity for engagement.  There is also the tricky problem of managing conflict or finding oneself in position of competing publics around directions and ideas.  This sort of problem can create political risks for those in local government.  I wonder if this is part of the problem.

The other part of the problem may a solution-oriented mindset the precludes individuals from seeking out new information or engaging with others as a means to seek out new information.  The pressure to perform and realize concrete products may also be at the crux of this issue.  I should talk to Rebecca M. A bit more and see what her thinking on this is.  This seems like the root of a new research project.  What are the strategies that local governments use to engage citizens in decision making process?  To what extend are these process truly participatory and to what extent do citizens feel engaged?  I could start by dong a comparison of all MA municipalities and look at some sort of activity that they all engage in.  Rebecca looked at economic development policies, but what are other policies?  I could focus on arts or creative economy policies?  I could look at local cultural councils or fire departments or police departments or some other municipal government office.  I already have a sense of the forms of municipal government and have some basic data as a result of the PILOT project.

What are the most likely ways in which municipal governments will want to engaged the community in decisions.  Planning and development seems like the most likely area, but then again I’d need to do some more research here and think about the kind of variation I’d be looking for.  This would be research project number three and I’d definitely need to start with some literature to see what is out there.

Role and place in sociopolitical development

Trying to work out how the mechanics of my interviews will progress while at the same time fretting a bit about the slow progress in things getting started.  As long as I get the adult interviews completed by June to mid-July, I should be good.  I’m starting to worry a bit about how this is all gong to get done.  I need to spent time each week keeping my mind focused on the dissertation research and coming to insights about the orgs.   Mapping my time commitments should help here.  If I think just about Organization A and Organization B the two environments seem very different.  Organization A is a housing organization that has long-time tenant involvement and youth who regularly come to the center to hang.  Some of these youth have come to the site for years.  Organization B has youth that come from all over the city and are engaged for intensive summer sessions.  They appear to have very specific consciousness raising activities.  Organization B is more formalized in its operations and demonstrates a greater deal of organizational capacity.  Both organizations have been in operations for some time.

It would seem that the youth at these two centers would have very different outcomes in terms of thinking about their roles.  I wonder if Organization A’s youth would have a greater sense of belonging and connection to the organization.  If they would feel part of things and would Organization B’s youth feel as though they went through an eye-opening experience?  How might each of these environments shape the youth.  As for Organization C, a jobs and environmental conservancy organization, youth seem to come to this organization in the capacity of a summer job.  It would seem that youth would come to an understanding of things through practice and contact with adults who are contributing their time.

So this makes me think about the role of employment.  S said that LTC provided her with opportunities for growth.  The stability of the job made this learning possible.  A number of teens at Organization A are hired on as teen staffers.  How does this employment signal a believe in the young person?  What sort of confidence, if any, comes from employment?  So these two categories of place and role might be worthwhile to explore a bit further.  I really need to start transcribing the three recordings that I have.

Today’s not the day

Not quite sure where my mind is at this morning.  All of those daily tasks are starting to rush back in and it is indeed difficult to get focused on reflective writing.  Creating space for such activities so easily falls to the bottom of the list.  Yet in a place like the NewSSC these practices became quite natural because they were scheduled into the day.  They were officially part of the day.  In some ways, I wonder if this should be the very first activity that I take on for the day.  Before any other routine task.  I say this because at the moment I am finding my mind drifting to other things that “need” to get done.  Mundane things like clean the house, sort through papers, etc.  I’ve started to put these writing up on line.  Not in a very public location, but in a location where I can refer to them and perhaps refer others to them.  I should consider putting the Woods Hole and Arouca posts up there as well.

HUD has new funding available for dissertations.  I am wondering if I can spin my research to be read as a community development exercise.  I definitely think that communities could think more solidly about how to create inclusive and participatory settings.  These in turn could inform how individuals transform their communities.  How do we create “open spaces” within the context of our urban landscapes?  How do we express value for individual contributions to creating thriving city environments?  I should read more widely in this area.

I definitely have a lesser quality post here.  I guess I need to get into a more meditated mindset.  Actually set myself up and get myself going.  But hey, at least I got myself going.

Organizational features for individual and collective goals

Referencing the Burning Man, the idea of collectivist and bureaucratic processes that run from under-organized to over-organized is again thinking about how individuals relate to larger societal and group goals or processes.  I’m not sure I totally agree with how Chu is defining “collectivist” and she seems to combine a number if disparate practices into one category.  A bureaucracy has much more clarity.  I suppose the task would be to do some research or make an inquiry into definitions of “collective” and “bureaucracy”.  So my schema would have a matrix that was about individual and collective goal and the degree to which these goals are prioritized. Or perhaps upon further thinking it is about thinking not about these two definitions but rather a series of differentiating features such that realize themselves in organizational forms such as individual agency, collective will, levels of constraint.

This brings back my thinking from the last days that relating to emerging new organizational forms.  So what would an ideal organizational form look like?  Here are some possible features:

  1. Individuals can easily move in and out of the organization
  2. Individuals have a good deal of flexibility in what skills, knowledge and commitment they bring to the table
  3. Individuals are able to grow new skills, expand knowledge, and increase commitment
  4. Group goals are clearly articulated and individuals are encouraged to engage in the realization of these goals
  5. Group goals are presented as a way for individuals to belong, contribute, and create meaning.
  6. Groups create a mechanism by which individuals are brought into meaningful connection with others.
  7. Facilitators work to ensure that both group and individual goals are met and that the organizational space is maintained as an “open environment”
  8. Values, practices / routines, and norms act as the primary bonding agents and could serve as boundary objects connecting them to other groups.

Individual vs. collective — the life trajectory

So, I am thinking about Rita’s suggestion that I should write down my thoughts and experiences related to the various groups I’ve been involved in and the lessons I’ve learned about group processes and dynamics.  Perhaps by doing this, I would come to some understanding of how to craft environments that are most conducive to individual and collective learning.  During Peter’s seminar / workshops presentation yesterday, it was clear to me that these “open spaces” not only needed to support and grow individual creativity, exploration, reflection, discussion and clarity, but that these spaces should also allow individuals to connect to larger group processes and shared collective goals by creating a sense of ownership, belonging and contribution.  These are the ideas reflected in the writings of Rousseau about civic and public spaces allowing individuals to see how their own individual interests can be connected to the interests of others and larger publics.

I was also reading Walter’s “life story” which in essence is his autobiographical sketch and that in many ways these past experiences have shaped how Walter has come to think about the 119.  If Mary Ann were to do a similar sketch, how would that combine?  What about others at the 119?  From a series of sketches, could we come to understand hoindividuals move in and out of the space and where the intersections might be.  The idea of spaces being these dances in reverse is interesting.  That we come in and out of space to learn, grow, contribute, connect.  I think I should also follow up with the “Kindness in Work” (www.kindnessinwork.org) website as well.

This idea that “open spaces” serve goals at the individual, group, and social goods and goals.  I was working out yesterday how Durkheim, Weber and Marx tried to map out the shifting relationship between individuals and the larger society during the transition to a modern industrialized form.  As we have moved toward the fragmentation of post-modern and now the reconnection as part of a global society what are the needs of individuals?  The needs of groups?  How does collective action occur?  What does such action require?  What happens when individuals no longer find meaning in institutions (i.e. the state, the church, the workplace)?  What happens when we all become free agents?  Yet the impulses to reconnect, to belong, to contribute, to find meaning is strong.  At the same time, imperatives for individual meaning, exploration and fulfillment prevail.  So we need to ignite individual passions and motivations.

Also, what was it that made me breakdown yesterday?  In part it is the memory of my parents and their loss.  But also, it is my core belief that so many people need support and spaces where they are valued and can belong.  They need spaces that allow their ideas to flourish and prevail.  I think my work at LTC is most reflective of this.

I think I should go back and create an intersecting process map of my life trajectory. Where my personal relationship, work, and intellectual paths are the main components.  I would need to add in key points of reference as well.  I did this once and found that I had these retraces.  I would help to do this again.