Learning to lead innovation and changeEnhancing students’ capacities to lead collaborative learning and innovation through systems thinking, design practice and responsive action

Faculty of Education and Social Work, CoCo Research Centre, 2015

Masters of the Learning Sciences and Technology program

2

What is your view of the world?

‘Am I apart from the universe?’ Meaning whenever I look, I’m looking as if through a peephole upon an

unfolding universe;

or,

‘Am I part of the universe?’ Meaning whenever I act, I’m changing myself and the universe as well.

von Foerster, 2003

von Foerster, H. (2003). Understanding understanding: essays on cybernetics and cognition. New York: Springer-Verlag.

3

What is a second-order systems view?

Whenever I reflect on these two alternatives, I’m surprised by the depth of the abyss that separates the two fundamentally different

worlds that can be created by such a choice.

That is to see myself as a citizen of an independent universe, whose regulations,

rules and customs I may eventually discover; or

to see myself as a participant in a conspiracy, whose customs, rules, and

regulations we are now inventing.

von Foerster, 2003

von Foerster, H. (2003). Understanding understanding: essays on cybernetics and cognition. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Developing the capacity to lead change...

Three modes of inquiry

Systems thinking

Design practice

Responsive action

...through collective learning and innovation

Students leading learning and innovation projects

5

Key course components

Using ideas and methods to inform knowledgeable action

and create principled-practical knowledge products

Making ideas actionable by

grounding them in past experiences

Understanding and improving

individual and group learning

Joint innovation Analysis and design

Teamwork

Ideas and methods

Weekly readings

Online discussions Analytical

reflection

...of teamwork

...of past experiences

6

I. Learning to inquire into change in complex social systems

What characterises second-order pedagogy?

The dynamic relationship between learning and doing

II. Learning to organise teamwork

Students as creators of their own learning and environmentsStudents as learners and innovators

Pedagogical principle I

I. Seeing everyday and professional experiences trough theory

II.Constructing principled-practical knowledge products

Making knowledge actionable and action knowledgeable

“I am really enjoying this course - you are making me think and reflect upon a lot of past learning situations in the organisations I have worked for.” (MLS&T Student, 2015) 

Students create Guides for Change and Innovation Managers

iPad Journey (MLS&T, 2011) 

Pedagogical principle II

Modern knowledge work is characterised by joint work creating material and digital knowledge objects or “epistemic artefacts”:

› models,

› blueprints,

› prototypes,

› principles,

› etc

Learning and innovation through creating epistemic artefacts

Individual learning:Domain of personal

change

Skills and capabilities

Attitudes and beliefs

Awareness and sensibilities

Pedagogical principle III

Image based on: Senge, P. et al. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York: Doubleday.

Linking organisational, team and individual learning

Organisational learning:

Domain of action

Guiding ideas

Infrastructures and environments

Methods and tools

Integrating perspectives of the learning sciences and organisational sciences

Pedagogical principle IV

1. Face-to-face meetings

2. Synchronous web conferencing

3. Online collaborative writing

4. Knowledge mapping and idea generation

5. Online project management

6. Asynchronous discussions

7. Shared document management

8. Etc

Learning to assemble productive learning and innovation environments

Students learn to manage distributed teamwork by learning to choose and use appropriate methods and tools

Second-order principles in action…

Discussion: Choose an innovation challenge

Initial teamwork: Explore the problem space

Design workshop: Analyse the situation and model change

Online teamwork: Develop the Change and Innovation Guide

Presentation: Final product and peer feedback

Reflection: Teamworkand process

123456

Innovation using a “soft systems” approach

12

Second-order principles driving change…

› Multiple perspectives of real world complex challenges

› Intercultural and multi-professional experiences

› User-oriented design products

› Students’ agency: teachers and students as co-designers

Authentic innovation and teamwork experiences“During this challenge I personally experienced frustration, panic and joy. I found my collaborators to be highly innovative both subjectively and objectively. They are worthy adversaries! I say adversaries because a culture of blind agreement (in my opinion) would not stimulate innovation.” (MLS&T, 2013)

“I think our group is motivated by the potential relevance of our guide” (MLS&T, 2015)

“I think I'm more focussing on being a good group member at the moment. I'm enjoying trying to focus on that process” (MLS&T, 2015)

“it's invigorating working with people from diverse backgrounds and interests in education, multiple perspectives and expertise on the discussion and solution” (MLS&T, 2015)

“Learning how to collaborate is the most interesting part of it” (MLS&T, 2015)

“We can explore and have ideas without pressure” (MLS&T, 2015)

Learning analytics for deep learning

What the students did

The types of challenges the students chose to address

Ipad journey: Introducing iPads in a Secondary School

Overcoming isolation in online learning

Learning on-the-go: Mobile learning in higher education

E-type guide: Moving from print to online in higher education

Redesigning learning spaces: Learning through making

Developing students’ creative potential

Google brain: Utilising power of digital knowledge tools for learning

Creating an engaging school

What the students said

› Novelty of pedagogical approach

› Motivation and engagement

› Teamwork experience

› Autonomy and agency

› Relevancy of theoretical knowledge

› Assessment of “soft” skills

14

Students value...

“Really enjoyed the group work challenge, the assessment piece was appropriate and the reflection was a good way to consolidate the learning.” (MLS&T, 2013)

“I learnt far more doing the teamwork than I'd expected to. There was a great exchange of ideas and knowledge. Overall, a different but very rewarding course for me.” (MLS&T, 2013)

“[The best aspect of the course is] the innovative ways that the course is designed to encourage, or actually demand, autonomous learning.” (MLS&T, 2013)

“This unit was a challenge for me, a completely new and different way to learn, but very effective!!” (MLS&T, 2013)

100%› General course evaluation results have been very high: 100%

agreement for 9 items out of 12

› All students agreed or strongly agreed that “Overall I was satisfied with the quality of this unit of study” (2013 evaluation)

Main sources of inspiration

› Blackmore, C., & Ison, R. (2012). Designing and developing learning systems for managing systemic change in a climate change world. In A. E. J. Wals & P. B. Corcoran (Eds.), Learning for sustainability in times of accelerating change (pp. 347-364). Wageningen, NL: Wageningen Academic Publisher.

› Bereiter, C. (2013). Principled practical knowledge: Not a bridge but a ladder. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 4-17.

› Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2006). Learning for action: a short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use for practitioner, teachers, and students. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

› Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1999). Soft systems methodology: a 30-year retrospective. Soft systems methodology in action (New ed.). New York: Wiley.

› Ison, R., Blackmore, C., Collins, K., & Furniss, P. ( 2007). Systemic environmental decision making: designing learning systems. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1340-1361.

› Goodyear, P. (2015) Teaching as design. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 2, 27-50

› Li, M. (2002). Fostering design culture through cultivating the user-designers' design thinking and systems thinking. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 15(5), 385-410.

› Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1992). The tree of knowledge: the biological roots of human understanding (Revised ed.). Boston, MA: Shambhala.

› Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: intentional change in an unpredictable world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

› Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: theory, pedagogy and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 397-417). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

› Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization (Revised ed.). Milsons Point, NSW: Random House Business Books.

› von Foerster, H. (2003). Understanding understanding: essays on cybernetics and cognition. New York: Springer-Verlag

› Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (in press). Epistemic fluency and professional education: innovation, knowledgeable action and actionable knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer.

Contacting us

Course title: Systems, Change and Learning

Course coordinator: Dr Lina Markauskaite

E-mail: Lina.Markauskaite@sydney.edu.au

Contributors: Professor Peter Reimann

Professor Peter Goodyear

Participating students

Acknowledgements: Illustrations from students’ projects 2010-15