I was pleased with this class as an extension of learning from GSLL 6206 Lifelong Learning Perspectives. The Designing Contexts in Lifelong Learning class was a great opportunity to take the learning from the Perspectives class and create a context where the knowledge was applied in a practical situation. Although the practical vignette created was a fictional scenario, we were all challenged to create a learning context which was as real as possible.
An interesting mix of students was in this class. This has been a recurring theme in the lifelong learning program. In each class there is ancillary learning which occurs that is unexpected but makes the learning experience as a whole more meaningful.
Looking around the room during the first class there were both familiar and new faces. After introductions I realized that the eclectic mix of age, race, profession, and personal perspectives was likely to provide a rich environment for learning. It was very interesting that during the process of dividing into groups, four people of very different backgrounds chose the same topic for the wiki project. Our chosen topic was Professional Development in Lifelong Learning. The other members of the group were Faiza, Lindsay, and Beth. In our initial meeting we discussed what this topic meant to each of us. We all had a slightly different perception of professional development based on individual experiences. Through discussing several options we discovered we could all relate to our chosen theme of a medical clinic. I believe this topic worked for everyone because we had all interacted with physicians in our past either as patients or professionals. This allowed for each of us to provide input to give the vignette and subsequent work a real foundation.
Three of the members of the group had taken the Lifelong Learning Perspectives course in the winter semester while one member had not. The member who had not is not enrolled in the lifelong learning program and was taking the course as an elective. In the Perspectives course we read and reviewed two books by Wenger relating to his social theory of learning and Communities of Practice. Our group member who was not familiar with Wenger expressed that she had catching-up to do to as the remainder of our group had the knowledge from the previous course. It reminded me of Wenger’s description of a newcomer’s struggles to enter an existing community. I would not think of Lindsay, Faiza, and I as a community, however, because of our preexisting learning experience Beth thought of us this way. In this regard Beth saw us as the old timers. We had the joint enterprise of the Perspectives course, the mutual engagement to explore Wenger’s ideas, and subsequently the shared repertoire built from the knowledge of Wenger’s concepts. It is really interesting to reflect on this experience within Wenger’s ideas. Beth was a very quick study so this did not result in any problems within our group. She was a legitimate participant to us.
It was useful to read the book Getting to Yes prior to starting this course. There is always negotiation required to complete work in groups. In this exercise we were asked to create a vignette and then design a supporting education program utilizing the Scientific Management Method. Following this, we offered a critique using Wenger’s theory of learning, and then a further critique informed by the ideas of Cervero and Wilson. Finally, we made recommendations to create a positive context for learning based on our vignette. Throughout this process we negotiated as a group. It began as we first came together to begin brainstorming about our vignette idea. It was evident at the outset that the members of our group had agreeable personalities and were interested in getting a quick start on the wiki project. Two members of the group chose their preferred focus areas for the wiki as they felt they were strong in the subject matter. The remaining member and I came to an agreement about the other areas after a brief discussion. I wouldn’t have chosen the vignette as my focus area had I been given first choice. I was more interested in learning about application of Wenger’s theory in practice or the ideas of Cervero and Wilson. However, based on the outline of the project, I could be involved in contributing to each piece so I agreed. In retrospect, it was a useful exercise to write the vignette. I had not done this before and it was an important piece of the project. The vignette provides the tie between the theories and what the outcome looks like in a practice setting. Knowledge of all three of the theories was required to write a vignette that allowed for exploration and development of the concepts.
As we were making decisions throughout the project I realized that we were involved in a practice that Fisher and Ury discuss in Getting to Yes as soft negotiating. This practice seems to fit in the student learning environment. Fisher and Ury describe soft negotiating as emphasizing the importance of building and maintaining a relationship. They also say soft negotiating produces results quickly and in an efficient manner. I had existing relationships with two of my group members and had done group work with both of them before. We knew as a group we had limited time to get the work done to complete our project. Both of these conditions likely caused this negotiation tactic to evolve. In this learning encounter it seemed to work well. We didn’t have a hard bargainer in our group so each member was able to express their opinions and felt comfortable to work with the other members. Following the last class we had discussion that our group did work very well together. We were fortunate that our individual personalities and work styles were agreeable to each other. Negotiating through the work on this project, we designed our own positive context for learning within our group.
Using the wiki format for sharing information caused me to be more thoughtful about what I posted and what changes I suggested. There is comfort in face to face communication because you can evaluate the non-verbal communication that is ongoing in discussions with other people. It is also easier to have an open dialogue. I was hesitant to change another group member's work on the wiki and support the change in a written note. It was a risk because the person may take the change as a criticism versus a constructive suggestion. When our group met face to face we discussed that we all had similar feelings. This factor was the reason we had a face to face meeting. The face to face meeting was very productive and we made better advances in the project. The face to face discussions allowed for more openness and negotiation about specific content. This realization has led me to wonder about communication broadly in our world. More and more communication is done through email or texting, blog sites, teleconferences, or video meetings on-line. I wonder as a society if we are losing some of the effectiveness of communication and space for negotiation because of the reduced amount of face to face time we spend with each other?
The positive outcome for this course was being able to see the theories in action. My experience in designing learning contexts up until now has been primarily based on using the Scientific Management Method (SMM). In my workplace I am regularly asked to participate in creating goals and objectives, supporting programs, and an evaluation of learning. In some instances this process works well. Straightforward education plans such as those for learning to use a piece of equipment or how to wash your hands effectively are adequately addressed using the SMM. However, learning which may be more complex based on the area to be addressed requires a more thoughtful process. Determining the most advantageous environment for learning, as we have learned, is not always as straightforward as it may seem. Going through the process of designing a learning context within my group and then listening to the views of the other three groups was really enlightening. I think everyone in the class would agree that the Designing Contexts course itself was a good example of the creation of an open and rich environment for us as lifelong learners.
