Are More Heads Better?
(download zipped Word 6.0 version)
Rick Dove, Paradigm Shift International, www.parshift.com,
|My wife still comments when she catches me talking to myself - though I
dont do it like I used to. In my pre-teen and teen-age years I would have raging
debates with myself - when nobody was around, of course. It would start civilly enough:
One voice would propose a newly surmised truth and another would question its validity.
Typically it would escalate into an impassioned argument between a thoughtful, logical
view and an emotional, political view. I remember these ending usually with some intense
feeling of accomplishment and pride, reason having vanquished emotion, or at least
understanding the many facets of a different view. Sometimes the emotional voice won,
smirking as it helped the reasoning side tie itself into a knot of contradictions.
Its so much easier to think out loud, why does it carry such a social stigma? Thats not the question well pursue here; we just observe that thinking is a lot like collaborating with yourself, or maybe with an imagined second party.
Ive always thought it was easier to collaborate with myself than with others: Committees design camels, meetings waste a lot of time, others dont see things in the same light, and its hard to help them value what you know if they havent fought the same demons. My engineering education reinforces these feelings - give me the requirements and the handbooks and creating a solution is a pretty efficient solitary process.
Different engineers do, however, come up with different designs. Maybe some have better handbooks than others, or maybe they have better conversations with themselves - somehow some are more innovative than others. When you consider the innovation factor engineering isnt so straight forward after all.
This is true for all knowledge work, not just engineering. Any group of professionals has its pecking order. When your ability to solve a problem or explain an effect or respond to a situation is based on the knowledge you have, more knowledge generates more value.
Its been some time since Ive practiced engineering. The
problems I wrestle with today dont have the handbooks and formulas and clear
knowledge that engineering relies upon - things like strategies and plans, organizational
and human productivity, methods for changing a corporate culture - things that are
impacted by the complexity and dynamics of the business environment.
Adapted from Collaborative Learning and the Internet, Dillenbourg and Schneider, ICCIA, 1995
1. Disagreement. Collaboration is a social activity between two or more people, and governed very much by the culture and language the participants have in common. When people come together to pursue a common objective it is likely that they will disagree at some point. Social factors swing into gear and prevent them from ignoring the conflict. This is as true for slight differences in viewpoint as it is for clearly opposing views.
2. Alternative. Bring together different people and you will bring together different viewpoints and conclusions. Most of us tend to define our problems in terms of solutions we can understand. Another viewpoint my not disagree or conflict with ours, but it may offer an alternative interpretation of the same data. Hearing alternatives helps us abandon less reasoned or less sensible conclusions that otherwise go unquestioned. These first two mechanisms are strong arguments for diversity in collaborative group makeup.
3. Explanation. When we verbalizes or write down a thought sequence or procedure for the first few times we learn while transforming tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Weve all experienced teaching something we know to someone else, and learning new things about it in the course of making it understandable to a different mind. Thus, collaborative partners who know more about the subject than others learn and benefit from the interaction as well.
4. Internalization. This is the act of integrating new concepts into your internal reasoning that are conveyed during interactive conversation with a more knowledgeable person. Two conditions must be met for this to occur: 1) you must be an active participant in the joint problem solution, and 2) the concepts conveyed by the more knowledgeable person must be close enough to what you already know to integrate readily.
5. Appropriation. Similar to internalization but more overt, appropriation is the active reinterpretation of a concept based on how it is incorporated into a larger schema by a more knowledgeable person. This is the primary mechanism at work in apprenticeship learning - where actions are modified by the learner based on how the results are appropriated and integrated by the more skilled of the two.
6. Shared load. This is not a division of labor by chopping a learning or development task into different parts and then assembling a solution later; but rather a unique collective ability to monitor different levels of conceptual development simultaneously. Sort of like one person thinking at the tree level, another at the forest level, and a third at the ecological level while all wrestle together with a problem about wood farming. Each takes responsibility for integrating consistency at their level of focus. It is very difficult for a single individual to operate at multiple meta-levels simultaneously - so this division of labor is natural in that it is efficient for the group to work this way.
7. Regulation. Members of a collaborative group often have to justify why the thought is proceeding in a certain direction. This justification activity makes the strategic knowledge explicit, and has a mutual regulatory effect, which tends to keep the development on solid ground.
8. Synchronicity. Collaborators attempt to keep each synchronized with the same level of understanding. Each monitors the developing understandings in others, and attempts to correct any mis-conveyed or misunderstood communication. People are not talking at each other but with each other.
Good collaboration is not compromise and consensus; it is an amplified
learning activity. A good collaboration will, however, produce a result that looks
comfortably familiar to all participants - it is not one persons design or strategy
or discovery with a few other ideas thrown in. The collaboration process helps everyone
understand the total concept to the depth of ownership - even if some of the ideas
dont get published exactly the way you would have resolved them, you at least
understand why they are resolved the way they are. Collaboration does not remove the need
for individual judgement. What each of us learns is private and individual.
| ©1998 RKDove - Attributed Copies Permitted
Essay #047 - Originally Published 11/98 at www.parshift.com
|Would you like to offer some thoughts or add to the dialog? Your sending of a comment automatically grants us permission to edit and post at our discretion. Send your comment to|
|========= Reply =========================
From: email@example.com (Sarah Graff) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002
I would love to see if there are any additional articles or opinions on the negative effects of collaborative learning.
========= Reply =========================