|
|
Children, on-line learning and authentic teaching skills in primary education |
Paradigms & Transformation |
|
|
Main Topics
More information ...
|
Thinking about Transformation In a organisational sense transformation will involve new and improved staff and student and stakeholder behaviour. In the sense in which the word 'transformation' is commonly used in the context of applying ICT. It also includes notions of improvement. The anticipated improvements provide the rationale for the investment (time, energy, $ ...) involved. This will require explicit thinking in terms of transformation rather than just
Thus we need to think of transformation in terms of change and improvement to the extent that there is a substantial impact of the order, say, 40% (minimum?).
For something to be described as a transformation it would be expected to have a substantial and significant impact on an aspect of the endeavour: relationships, processes, efficiency, effectiveness. Thus transformations are achieved at both an operational and a cultural level. The cultural aspects are likely to include
Paradigms Notions of substantial and significant are shaped by the paradigms we hold. In this sense 'paradigm' means the 'working model' of what we do, why and how that we carry in our heads. Thus one teacher might have a paradigm of teaching as command, control and delivery because the students are ignorant and such an approach is good for them. Another teacher might hold a paradigm of teaching as mediation of learning. A third teacher may understand teaching as leadership according to the competence and commitment of the students in relation to the task.
Perceptions of transformation Thus it is common for transformations to be perceived as
hence the requirement for leadership and mediation. In terms of action learning mediation requires questioning insight into theexperiences -> processing -> response -> behaviour -> outcome Mediation is likely to be more effective if consistently focused on improvement (for all parties) rather than change. The dilemma for facilitators of change is that people hold different paradigms and this means that improvement means very different things
Measures of Transformation Change comes in many forms and orders. Given the complexity of human systems it might be useful to consider some 'rule-of-thumb' measures of change over time, eg,
The Paradigm Problem Adopters and resisters have very different perspectives: the key issue is whether the (intended) transformation represents improvement or change??
Consider Popper's proposition: that knowledge is generated in response to problems. As Popper puts it, a problem (P1) leads to a tentative theory (TT) from which we attempt to eliminate errors (EE) and since our initial problem can now be solved (if we act on our improved theory) then we encounter subsequent and hopefully richer problems (P2). In summary P1 >> TT >> EE >> P2 (Popper's tetradic) This implies that 'we learn in order to be able to solve richer problems' !!
This is similar to the notions of Handy & Bennis in their book 'The Age of Unreason'. They propose a cycle of learning (similar to continuous improvement). he proposes that person must
One implication is that we all have such an awesome opportunity to learn, if we choose to, especially when the testing and reflecting attends to widely held beliefs and paradigms.
Paradigms and Action Learning Paradigms are part of our programmed knowledge. Paradigms are also developed in this way often unconsciously - "All men are b-----ds" can be understood as a 'theory' and as a paradigm held by some people. Note that since paradigms are part of our knowledge they are likely to shape the
The following model illustrates the likely links between action learning, Popper and paradigms
Transformations are largely based on such an approach. However they may be experienced very differently by the initiators and external respondents involved.
A problem is a mismatch between experience and purposes (hopes/expectations). Using popper's tetradic we can outline some fundamental issues:
Change Management Commonly, change management tends to focus on assumption of the problem and the argument for the change/improvement (TT and EE). The argument is usually about demonstrating the validity of the theory, that is EE confirms TT. The expectation of the initiators is that all should follow.
The Common Flaw The flaw with such an approach is that there has not been agreement on the problem hence the refined theory or solution (TT & EE) is often largely irrelevant to those who have NOT agreed on the problem!!!
To the sceptics, the proposed transformation is perceived as change. Since the problem is not acknowledge (or dismissed for other reasons) it is perceived differently. A proposed or required transformation may be perceived as unreasonable and disruptive.
On the other hand for the initiator the transformation is improvement, that is better than before, because
Paradigms and Transformation A 'chicken and the egg' question? Probably not, at least initially. Initiators of transformations are likely to have experienced a transformation of their own personal paradigm prior to initiating the organisational or operation paradigm. Perhaps as a result of an insight the initiator has adopted a changed 'working model' of how things might/should be and hence they were able to identify an initial problem and then responded to it in a way that supports the transformation to which they are committed. The experience is very real, at least for them.
|
|
This site is maintained by Ivan
Webb phone 03 6324 3492 |
