Assisted Learning

A Workbook

Rolf Arnold

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über <http://dnb.d-nb.de> abrufbar.

1. Auflage 2011

Alle Rechte vorbehalten, all rights reserved

© Bildungstransfer Verlag, Landau 2011

www.bildungstransfer.com

Das Werk einschließlich aller Abbildungen ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen, und die Einspeicherung und Bearbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.

Autor: Rolf Arnold

Verlag: Bildungstransfer Verlag, Landau

Umschlaggestaltung und Layout: Bildungstransfer GmbH, Landau

Herstellung: Books on Demand GmbH, Norderstedt

ISBN: 978-3-941972-02-5

Foreword

"Assisted Learning" is the first book in the series "Contributions to Adult Education" of the publisher Bildungstransfer. This series aims at making both future-oriented and action-relevant writings from the research on and practice of adult education, available to the interested English-speaking public.

Here Rolf Arnold combines three trends of long years of research activity: his innovative teaching methods based on the principles of self-determination and self-control of the learner, the concept of "pedagogic leadership" and finally the approach of "emotional competence". These three pillars form the fundamental basis for "Assisted Learning" as a future-oriented concept of adult education that places the learner at the centre point.

"Assisted Learning" (enabling didactics) characterizes a teaching-learning process, which shifts the angle of vision away from teaching to learning. In class, as in other learning situations there is no direct and causal production of learning. Learning takes place exclusively through independent acquisition of the learner. As a result what is taught is not what is learnt.

Rather, under this perspective the focus shifts away from the mediation of learning content by the teacher to an active appropriation by the learner. The teacher must prepare the learning content methodically in such a way that the activity of learning is transfered to the learner. This finding is mirrored in the systemic-constructivist thinking of the author.

Thus there is a departure from the so-called "generation or instruction teaching," which assumes that learning and the mediation of certain selected learning content could be feasible, if only the targets are accurately predetermined and the learning process planned with one's own methods and materials. The teacher can only encourage the students to learn, he can accompany them and "arrange" learning processes. Teaching from the viewpoint of "Assisted Learning" means creating learning-stimulating conditions and generating learning spaces.

In accordance with this only very briefly characterized approach, this text is designed as a "workbook". The reader will find almost thirty suggestions for self- reflection as well as numerous mnemonics. In accordance with a systemic- constructivist approach, we have waived the "sample solutions" which only gives the reader the impression of an apparent objectivity.

Landau, Germany February 2011
Uwe Wieckenberg Editor

Contents

List of Figures | VII
List of Tables | VIII
About the Author | IX

1. Preface | 1
2. The Effects of Education Are Uncertain, but Some Shaping Is Certainly Possible | 3
2.1 The Dual Uncertainty of Education Effect | 5
2.2 Education As a Moral Communication | 12
3. Learning and Learning Theories | 19
3.1 Learning Concepts | 19
3.2 Overview of Learning Theories | 20
3.3 New Learning Requirements and Learning Methods | 23
4. Learning Guidance and Leadership in Assisted Learning | 31
4.1 Guidance and Counseling | 32
4.2 Leadership | 35
5. Assisted Learning | 41
5.1 From Teaching Culture to Learning Culture | 41
5.2 At the Core: Method | 45
5.3 Rethinking Learning and Education | 54
5.4 E-Learning | 58
5.5 Guided Self-study | 64
5.6 Assisted Learning As a New Approach | 67

6. The Basis: Pedagogic Leadership As Subsidiary Leadership | 81
6.1 Leadership: Empowerment to Self-Leadership | 82
6.2 Self-reflection, Role Distance and Functional Change of Managers | 92
6.3 Trust: The Emotional Glue of Social Interaction | 96
6.4 Nurturing Stance: Looking for Potential in the Work Force | 101
7. The Systemics of Emotions | 10 8
7.1 We Are “Lensing” – All the Time! | 108
7.2 Certainty Is What One Feels! | 123
7.3 The Primacy of Emotion | 135
8. Emotional Competence As Core Competence of School Leadership | 139
8.1 The “Yes, but...” Syndrome | 139
8.2 Leadership As the Management of Primary Constructions - Our Own and Those of Others | 144
8.3 Leadership and Followership in Daily School Life – From a Theory of Emotion Perspective | 151

Bibliography
161

About the Author

Prof. Dr. Rolf Arnold: Dipl.-Päd. (MA. Ed.), born in 1952, obtained his PhD at the University of Heidelberg (1983), worked thereafter for five years in an International Adult Education Centre, obtained his postdoctoral qualification at the Distance University of Hagen in 1987 and has been working at the Department of Pedagogics (in the fields of Vocational and Adult Education) at the Technical University of Kaiserslautern since 1990. He is also Scientific Director and Chairman of the Board for the Distance and International Studies Centre (DISC) as well as the Speaker of the Virtual Campus Rhineland-Palatinate (VCRP).

• He held teaching posts at the Universities of Heidelberg, Bern, and Klagenfurt.

• In 2002 he rejected an appointment at the University of Tubingen.

• Since 1984 he has undertaken numerous teaching and advisory field trips to developing countries, particularly in Latin America (Topic: Development of Educational Systems).

• He is a member of numerous expert commissions and member of the regional advisory committee for continuing education in the State of Rhineland-Palatinate, chairman of the administrative council of the German Institute of Adult Education (DIE), chairman of the advisory board of the Institute for Further Education and Counsel (IFB) for the State of Rhine- land-Palatinate and a member of the BMBF's innovation initiative for continuing education as well.

• Main research areas: Adult Education, Vocational Training and Continuing Education, Teaching and Learning System Development (e.g. Distance Studies), Systemic Pedagogy and Intercultural Vocational Education.

1. Preface

The first part of this book introduces a new way of thinking about learning and teaching. The concept of “Assisted Learning” (Ermöglichungsdidaktik) is presented in the context of the ongoing professional discussions of terms like education and learning as well as the emerging new learning requirements and educational methods. Assisted learning requires a cultural change in education, a change which gives more weight to the methods owned by the learner. Education and learning are being re-invented in a systemic-constructivist context.

Current thinking about the emotional construction of reality is introduced against the background of this new understanding of the learning function and the idea of emotional competence is the focus of the second part of the book. This idea involves, especially, the development of emotional competence. Educational professionals and administrators learn to assume the role of a reflexive observer, in the sense of self-reflection. Those who know the preferred patterns of their world view may not be immune from returning to them over and over again, but they are able to apply them flexibly. This ability in the end is a prerequisite for managing one’s own destructive emotions in a more constructive manner. This is only acquired through reflexive learning processes, the willingness to critically question our usual patterns of behavior and includes knowledge of the way perceptions function. The aim is to achieve a more conscious or sensitive response and to offer more support to educating and education in the context of Assisted Learning.

2. The Effects of Education Are Uncertain,
but Some Shaping Is Certainly Possible

Educational issues are issues for everyone. Everyone knows all about such things, each person has the experience of their own education and is – usually unsolicited – ready to offer their advice. These nuggets of advice usually originate from a trusted perspective on things, which should not be resented. This advice usually has to do with setting the necessary boundaries. Occasionally, popular wisdom holds that parents and teachers need to act firmly and administer discipline. A closer look at this advice quickly shows that it reflects what those giving the advice have experienced themselves. What educational researchers say and whether and to what extent the recommended measures are truly effective are not usually questioned. The fact is, what makes sense to us – and obviously, the only thing that can make sense to us – is what we can illustrate through our own experience.

This is the reason traditional education styles are so incredibly “tenacious” and we have great difficulty questioning something that has made us into the persons we are. But do we know the long-term effect of violence and humiliation on the maturation processes of independent individuals? Experienced violence scars people just as a violent education does. People sometimes suffer years later from the humiliations they experienced at school or, at home at the hands of their parents. There are moving reports and stories of how a violent education can affect one’s entire life.

In such descriptions, we encounter a fundamental element of education, namely, the imbalance in power – we are referring to parental authority – which clearly regulates the violence. The weaker party must obey the will of the stronger party, although the stronger party never has to prove its legitimacy. In this case, an old anthropological pattern prevails, which is often described as the “need to educate” the next generation of the society. According to this theory, people are “incomplete” at the beginning of their development and require the example, the guiding hand, as well as the experience of the elders – or “parents” – in order to prepare for their future roles in the advance of civilization and to mature into productive adults. But is this reasoning correct and does it justify all that parents do and what harm they may do to their children?

In her essay “What can we learn from street and working children?” the Swedish educationist, Birgitta Qvarsell, provides yet another argument in favor of why the traditional concept about the relationship between young and old should be reconsidered. In our world, “work” is viewed as an economic activity preferably reserved for adults, whereas in many countries around the world, it is a standard activity for children (besides playing and learning). With this in mind, we are obliged to readjust the focus of educational research and, in addition, more closely analyze the various shifts in the relationship between adults and children:

“The situation for children of our time is very clearly marked by what M. Mead used to call co-figurative forms for culture and learning (1979). In a relatively stable society you can count on the so called post-figurative learning form as the normal one. When changes are few and the relations between generations are stable, the younger will learn from the elder, in a post-figurative way. Parents, teachers and the other professionals teach and bring up children and youngster. Our society is to some extent co-figurative, equals learning from each other, peers from peers. To some extent it is also evident that we change into a society with pre-figurative learning conditions. Younger people have to teach the older generation the rules of society in some aspects or the techniques to be used in our modern information systems. Such changes may, of course, be seen as threatening by the adults, who are not used to learn from the younger generation” (Qvarsell 2002, p. 117 f).

There may be a theory of the “need to educate mankind”, which is advanced in the theory of lifelong learning, but if so, only because it promotes an interpretation and legitimizes and ultimately guarantees the continued existence of the educational science of “pedagogics” – a self-critical thought posed with increasing frequency by educational theorists. There is another critical idea, namely the question of the intended and unintended side and long-term effects of educational measures. The future of a society is, after all, affected and often adversely affected by what happens in the child’s room and the expectations placed on the children.

2.1 The Dual Uncertainty of Education’s Effect

Only relatively little can be ascertained about the effects or the effectiveness of education. Nevertheless, the fact cannot ignore that educators, either after careful deliberation or without giving any thought to the matter, employ educational measures that often produce no effect or a different, perhaps including even some unexpected effects. Education is also a systemic process. It is an attempt to intervene in the complex interactions between effects, similar to the attempt to lead an organization or to counsel a family. While such intervention may contribute to success, there is no guarantee that it will. It is always the receiving system that determines whether the advice is accepted or not. The brain researcher Antonio R. Damasio (2003) cited the words of Albert Einstein in this context:

"All knowledge of reality proceeds from experience and ends with it." (Einstein 2005, p. 127).

It is therefore the education which we ourselves experience that defines us and allows us to only see and believe what we know from personal experience. Therefore, the effects of education are mostly automatic, whereas, the intent of education is also often arbitrary. And such early impressions have a long term effect. They constitute the pillars of our identity - with the result that later in life we always encounter similar presumptions of authority or we always re-create these emotionally for ourselves. We are comfortable with what we know. This is why even the worst experience provides us at least with the assurance of being able to make safe predictions. This explains why we sometimes "recognize" threats, humiliation, and enfeeblement even in situations where it is not the "intent".

Education does take effect, but one cannot make it take effect: that may be the concluding summary for the long-term, non-arbitrary, even undesired effects from enduring the experience of authority. This does not readily provide us with any advice unless the social context of growing up already includes the fundamental forms of the “my-place-in-the-world” feeling. Parents, teachers, and other educators must “know” from this that they cannot fail to educate. Education occurs in the contexts of worldly encounters. Depending on whether I experience the world as supportive or oppressive, I will have a tendency to continue this basic experience in the future and, accordingly, view the ever-new requirements and relationships of my life in a strengthened or weakened context. For this reason, the most important task of education is to achieve a supportive context. Unfortunately, many parents and educators fail at this task because they themselves were rarely exposed to such supportive experiences. This explains how "black pedagogy" survives through the generations and keeps the myth of breaking the willful child alive. The essential elements of this black pedagogy are elimination and projection.

There is much to be said for the idea that the only way we will be able to shape education in the context of a supportive, self-identity promoting manner, is to take into consideration the elimination and projection ongoing in the soul of the educator. It is from the inner logic of the educator that the individual educational measures arise. The value placed on emotional expression and self-efficacy experiences depends on whether and to what extent the educator has developed these qualities in his own soul. His educational activities are more often an expression of self than an appeal to others or even a stimulus for others. If we do not succeed in taking these childhood impressions of the educator into consideration, education will continue to remain what it has always been: the transmission of the mental opportunities of one generation to the next - thus, prolonging in the subject the often sub-optimal maturation of the slumbering potential within each human being.

Self-reflection 1: What is needed, so that education can be more than the transmission of our own self-experience?

I did not initially support this view of educational issues. Only gradually did I become aware that educational science basically tends to overestimate the influence of educators and teachers. Such a view is highly questionable from a systems theory perspective. After all, it originates from a machine model of teaching, which per se, is ultimately based on the assumption that good intentions alone will guarantee success. Gradually, it became clear to me that educational interventions tend to be ineffective. The essential question for pedagogy is therefore, under what conditions do the well-intentioned interventions of the actors (e.g. parents, teachers) lead to failure and under what conditions can successful effects be achieved.

Such thought is capable of toppling the traditional pedagogic world view. This is most applicable to the intents, insights, attitudes, or even the content to be transmitted (in terms of communicating) inherent in all pedagogical models. Related to this proposition is the fact that pedagogical thinking often has its de facto reference point in the actors system and not in the target systems. They do not appear at all as "systems", rather in many ways they appear as a systemic context yet to be structured. Systemic thinking uses a quite different approach: it is when all systems come into focus in their own logic and the actor is at best imagined initially as an “external” observer, outside the event and seen only when he so desires to be seen. This view serves one's own purposes and is therefore necessarily blind to the purposes of other subjects. If at all, these aims are viewed as rhetorical conditions and remain external to the self-organization or even self-determination of the individual. This is "OK", because any “self- determination” based on a set of rules, is not really self-determination at all.

Education has a dual uncertainty in its effect: First, the long-term identity effects tend to counteract - as already mentioned - what education measures claim to have as their goal. On the other hand, it can be debated which of the experiences an individual may be exposed to in life are to be categorized as being educational in nature and which are not.

Although no linear cause-effect causalities can be traced and, in some cases, the interrelationships of effects can vary markedly, they still can be described and pragmatically summarized. This opens up opportunities for action which provide the educator with a wealth of options that are more extensive than their "instinctive pedagogy," which, as already mentioned, houses and stores their own educational experiences until called up for playback. Sound theoretical principles are needed to break this devastating cycle. Although theory cannot generally say what is “better” or what is “less suitable,” it can describe scenarios, investigate the complexity of each case for potentially effective factors, and propose differentiated knowledge on problems of education. This differentiated knowledge enables an alternative to the "instinctive pedagogy" and paves the way for creativity and diversity in educational methods.

Table 2.1: The dual uncertainty of education’s effect

The dual uncertainty of education represents not just a problem, but also an opportunity for transformation and change. We cannot guarantee success in education since we cannot control the experiences of an adolescent, but we can broaden it and ensure, to a certain degree, that particular experiences are acquired or made up at a later time. Although education occurs through social interaction (in the family and in daily life), it offers very different options for individual development. In contexts that are inflexible and perhaps dominated by violence and rigidity, the striving for self development of the individual finds less guidance, encouragement, and support than in a context of diverse cultural experience as is available in an open society. It is the social environment that constitutes the realm of possible effects of education. However, the opposite also applies: the development of a society thrives on the self-confidence, courage, solidarity, and determination which can develop among its members.

These interactions require us to take a systemic view of the event. A systemic view is based on the interdependence of numerous factors and, through optimized planning, describes the potential efficacy of training measures, which can hardly be controlled to ensure success. In this case, another mode of intervention becomes apparent, which can perhaps best be characterized as "withinness". On the other hand, a systemic view always accounts for the fact that educators do not observe the situation from the point of view of a rational expert: rather, they view educational situations through the lenses of their own growing up and educating experiences – i.e., education is always a follow-up action, which must have a link back to the education of the pupils as well as to the educational routines of the educators.

The uncertainty of the education’s effect does not suggest an educational “anything-goes” attitude; rather it suggests the importance of including this special feature of pedagogy in the theoretical study. This special feature is evident in the three contexts of education: there is a "promise context" to education (study of unproven hypotheses), an "observation context" (study of typology and evaluation of "what works" or "what does not work"), and an "action context" (study of individual education responsibility). The interrelationships between these different contexts have not been adequately examined. This leads the practice ("action context") to expect guiding principles through research ("observation context"), which can assist in the achievement of what the other party promised or expected - a situation that cannot be seamlessly created in the systemic context of the educator.

Table 2.2: Fundamental maxims of education

Example:

These fundamental maxims of education mark the boundaries in which we constantly interact educationally. “What should I do?” - a friend recently asked, after he had described to me in detail the increasingly alarming situation in which his sixteen years old son found himself. “Actually” - so his conclusive judgment – “I don't even like my son any more. He has become a real wimp! He steals, loafs around with dubious friends, and gets nothing done. He neither has a school certificate nor an apprenticeship. That's not 'my son' at all”. The problem outlined here does not lend itself to a systemic-constructivist approach - so I started my support to the disappointed father not by addressing the question “What can I do?”, but rather by allowing the question, “What am

I doing and how has what I have already done contributed to the continued existence of this unsatisfactory situation?”True to the first fundamental maxim “One can't help but educate!” Such a question puts the systemics of the situation under focus and does not begin with a judgment or condemnation. The aim is to understand how the players justify their behaviors – with mostly hidden meanings – and thus often create external situations, in which they then activate their familiar pattern of thinking and feeling. In this process, not just the behavior of the son which is classified as "problematic" is initially placed under focus, but also one's own reaction to such a behavior: “Why is my basic reaction to weakness and failure so exaggerated and rigid?”This is the sort of question that first softens the judgmental attitude and turns attentions to the peculiarities of one's own observation and response patterns. This step alone seems to bring a lot of things to light that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual issue of education.

The reasons why my discussion partner basically reacts rigidly to weakness and failure became evident. He even supplied biographical material which helped him to understand that there was an overwhelming fear of weakness and failure in himself, which “clouded” his view and determined his reaction to the behavior of his son. In this context, it can be faintly deduced that this overwhelming fear was probably that of his father as well, who had to boldly undertake highly risky operations in the last few months of war as a sixteen-year-old “elite soldier” without any toleration for hesitation, fear, or evasion. The systemic that is re-constellated in an training situation is always of a diachronic nature; the experiences of people with similar structural dispositions are revealed, which in this case, means fear and weakness cannot be tolerated and must be suppressed, whoever expresses them simply “does not belong.” Only after reflection on this biographical systemic was it also possible to approach the question: to what extent was his derogatory reaction to his own son perhaps partially responsible for creating the lamented situation. During the consultation, the fundamental maxims numbers 3, 6 and, especially, 2 were also addressed, since the problematic behavior of the son could also be understood as a kind of "cry for help" to his helpful and supportive father.

This example illustrates how a systemic-constructivist view of an educational problem always leads beyond the everyday certainties of life. The possibility to change the existing interpretation of the situation emerges through discussing, identifying, and reflecting on the resonating systemic within a situation. The change in interpretation creates the possibilities for all players involved to be different.

In the conversation reported above, the discovery of the underlying patterns of one's own observations created the possibility to add another perspective to the familiar ones. After this discovery, what had been perceived as a problematic situation became clear in its (inevitable) constructiveness and could be re-analyzed in the light of these own preconceptions. Only then did the view of the systemic in which his counterpart was entangled become clear(er) and a helpful discussion of "educational measures" could ensue with respect to the logic of the counterpart and less as an expression of one's own past experiences. Thus, the fundamental ability to understand is the real basis of education.

Self-reflection 2: Describe a fictional or a true experience about a situation in which new interpretations and meanings of the situation became apparent through further inquiries.

2.2 Education As a Moral Communication

"Education without a value-basis is unthinkable!" This is the basic consensus of all those professionally concerned with education. However, the broad agreement seems to end with that observation. The contentious issue in today’s "open" pluralistic society is not only about values, but rather whether there are still values on which a consensus can be built. Also debatable is how to permanently anchor such values in the heart and mind to serve as an orientation point for adolescent youths.

Even though many theorists today propose that we are living in a value uncertain or better said – uncertain society – we cannot fail to notice that parents, if asked, generally know very well what they want to achieve with the education of their children. The open question remaining is that of the communicability of values, i.e., the question of whether and how an effective and long-lasting embedding of values in the minds and hearts of the adolescent generation can be ensured. The plurality and the uncertainty of values, which brings freedom and diversity of choice to individuals also brings with it the danger of the disintegration of the society. This observation should not be understood as a lamentation over the loss of formerly effective integration models, rather it is a matter of seeking intelligent ways of facilitating the development of the value orientation so important in the lives of adolescents, while also assisting the people in a society to relate to a common value base. According to the messages heard today in the public, social sciences and philosophical debates, this can only be achieved when there are no more material values declared and pronounced as binding for everyone. It is more important to motivate the individual to give meaning to his own existence and life than to communicate, reflect, and argue with others about the meaning.

No more gods? Is education after the ending of the greatest story ever told still possible? The American educator Neil Postman, postulates in his book “The End of Education” that the “gods” or, to use his term “the common tales”, of public education cannot survive. “ (Postman 1995, p. 20). In his fundamental consideration, he grapples with the “gods who are not”, and in the process he unmasks all the “tales” on which the modern society of America lives. He rails against the “belief in the market economy” as much as against the “promise of consumption god”, the “god of economic utility,” the “god of technology,” the “melting-pot tale of America,” and “multiculturalism.” In his opinion, these are no more suitable as “gods” than computers and television and the information cult associated with them. In contrast, he sketches some concepts, from which a guiding force could also emerge in a value uncertain and pluralistic society. Among other things, he offers the following concepts:

• The “spaceship earth,” i.e., a concept that assumes that humanity has a moral obligation towards the preservation of the earth,

• The “fallen angel,” i.e., the recognition that people make mistakes, therefore claims of certainty and faith in science are not suitable as standards and guidance for the society and the lives of individuals,

• The “American experiment,” i.e., the idea that human rights and the principle of continuing discussion are suitable for regulating social cooperation,

• The “law of diversity,” i.e., the idea that from linguistic, religious, cultural differences reciprocal stimulation, growth and strength can emerge.

These four concepts can be understood in the deepest sense, as humanistic concepts because they have no normative requirements and do not prompt individuals to adopt values, rather they create a framework, within which the validity of guidelines can be discussed and negotiated. At the same time, these concepts prove to be insightful concepts as they question superficial success and the superficial forces of technological and market standards. Certainly, in agreement with Erich Fromm - not the criteria of “having,” but that of “being” is brought into focus. In this sense, the “new gods” outlined by Postman prove to be a “productive orientation” in the sense of Fromm’s writings, because they reflect the expression of logical thinking, the love of life (biophilia), and human solidarity (cf. Fromm, 1976).

In order for adolescents to adopt such productive orientations and allow them to personally develop a lasting basis orientation and endow life with meaning, it is necessary to strengthen their own self-respect. The reason for this approach to one's own self-esteem is that a person, who estimates the value of his own personality low, will barely be in a position to approach others or to participate in a social environment as an understanding person who promotes cooperation. The ability “to endow life with meaning” or a value orientation begins with the promotion of self-esteem. Parents, educators, and teachers can learn to promote self-esteem and create an important basis for successful personality development and self-directed, lifelong learning in the children and adolescents under their care.

Contemplating the possibilities of specifically developing this self-respect in classrooms or in teaching-learning contexts, three basic approaches can be identified:

• The experience of being treated respectfully,

• The experience of self-efficacy,

• The promotion of self-image.

Assisted learning is based on the self-esteem and self-efficacy (Bandura 1997) of the subject. Only those who can respect themselves and have experienced themselves as self-effective dare to try something. And only those who have the self-confidence to try can also have confidence and trust in others and also treat them with respect.

These three aspects reflect the fact that individual self-respect is to a large degree dependent on how respectfully he is treated and how effective he experiences himself to be within the organization of his social and physical environment. To ensure young people have the chance to develop an experience of self-efficacy, it is important to avoid constant threats and humiliations; teachers and parents must approach their students to convey real expectations not only as an element of “conducting” the teaching process; and, to avoid ostracism and complicated and even incomprehensible and ambiguous expressions. It is also important that teachers intervene when they notice others being treated disparagingly and insensitively. Similarly, through targeted activities, it is essential to give individuals the experience that they are important.

From these lines of argument, the outline of a concept of assisted learning can be discerned. It includes:

• Valuing (own experiences),

• Linking aids (between old and new), and

• Openness of effect

The effects of educational interventions are not binding or even sustainable. This was never the case. Even in times when it was more possible to instill fear and terror into systems, the “stubbornness” of the subjects could never be completely subdued. People have always learned “against the grain”, and the subjects have always learned differently and more than was taught. The systemic-constructivist pedagogy proceeds from that which has always worked: “If it is true that systems

cannot be developed, but rather they can only develop themselves, why are these facts not taken to some extent as the basis for business?” By asking and thinking in this manner, the focus is more on the aspect of assisting (enabling) and it diverges away from the engineering mentality of manufacturing and production output.

In this way, a different mindset of observation, assessment, and acting can emerge, which takes the uncertainty of the effect of education into account. Training, education, and learning follow the inner logic of the subject. Through monitoring, it is possible to provide breathing space and indirect encouragement, but not really “intervene” (in the technical sense of the word). Systemic- constructivist pedagogy is therefore a non-interventionist pedagogy. It promotes reflexivity in pedagogical activities, but does not directly initiate it. As such it is an ethical pedagogy, which essentially positions itself in the subsidiary role. This means that the self-determination and self-organization of systems will achieve primacy – if for no other reason than simply because it is already so.

With such questioning, a systemic-constructivist approach to Training and education is closely related to the educational progressivism philosophy (cf. Dewey 1916; 1925, Rogers 1969). The educational progressivism was “systemic” in the sense that it examined the conditions that make self-control possible, with the knowledge that it is in self-control alone that the logic of the other can become apparent. Many of the progressive authors were already aware of the ineffectiveness of linear schooling models and they fundamentally questioned the dominant pedagogic theory of the need to educate people. This is especially valid for the didactic version of this thesis, which says, “teaching” is an absolute prerequisite for “learning”. This thesis is still present - albeit in a modified and weakened form – in the didactic debates of this day. It was only very gradually that the view began to widen to include the autodidactic forms of learning and it became evident that lifelong learning is necessarily a self-directed activity, which can be achieved in diverse contexts and not in pre-existing curricula and institutionalized processes.

However, the systemic-constructivist pedagogy is more than just an updated edition of educational progressivism concepts. It builds more on the cognitive psychological insights into the emergent characteristics of thinking, feeling and acting by the subject and does not succumb to the illusion of self-determination of open education. Systemic-constructivist pedagogy attempts rather to explain the theory that intervention is possible, but uncertain in its effects (by Glasersfeld 1987). It is ultimately concerned with redefining educational interaction and approaching it from the dynamics of the target system. Training, education, and learning occur as a co-evolution of two linked systems, in which both can only contribute what they have available. The success of this co-evolution is only “guaranteed” through the facilitation of connected abilities, but not by insistent linearity (e.g. in the sense of standardization).

A systemic-constructivist pedagogy that addresses this issue is essentially the pedagogy of assisted learning. It supports the development of subjectivity and competency; combines a variety of acquisition opportunities; and assists, advises, and supports the movement of the learner. It's not about if-then relationships, but about options of growth and acquisition. People develop from within, but in the process, they require opportunities of stimulation, questioning, and searching. However, not everyone needs the same things. This is why pedagogy and didactics cannot develop any rules, they can only provide knowledge obtained from reflection, to facilitate the initiation of different learning situations which can then be monitored and evaluated. A systemic-constructivist pedagogy is aware of the unavailability of learning and educational success. Nevertheless, it also knows from its centuries-old tradition that these outcomes are often far more likely when education can be structured as an encounter or relationship, which can be shared and experienced by means of a visible demonstration of mutual dealings in a value-based manner. The “systemic” is a manner of dealing with complexity, an observer’s perspective, and the uncertainties of effect and attributions of effect, which differs in many respects from the traditional image of expert pedagogic action. This point is discussed further over the course of this argument.

Self-reflection 3: How can a systemic-constructivist pedagogy be described as “moderate?” How does this “moderation” provide relief for educators and teachers?

3. Learning and Learning Theories

There are various learning concepts put forth in the current debate. For example, there is talk of informal, self-directed, and emotional learning. These terms are only used in a loose relationship to the learning theories that will be discussed below (behaviorist, cognitivist, constructivist, and subject-scientific learning theories).

3.1 Learning Concepts

Learning can be defined as a competency-building acquisition of knowledge, abilities, and skills.

Learning not only takes place deliberately (intentional learning), but also casually (functional or “en passant” learning); not only in the institutionalized context of school, training, university, etc. (formal learning), but also in practical life (informal learning) (cf. inter alia Garrik 1998, Jarvis 1987). Many international studies have found that informal learning makes up 60-80 percent of the total skills acquisition (e.g., OECD 1977). Learning is therefore not primarily an institutionalized practice, but rather a way of life.

Against this background, some of the learning theories presented in the following paragraphs are inadequate. Such learning theories as well as the interpretations and the guided learning culture grounded on them and practiced in many educational institutions actually fail to see many of the skill-building learning efforts and learning processes of young and adult learners. The study and theoretical interpretation of learning still have the “autodidactic” and the “facilitative turn” waiting for their remarks, i.e., they must start to devote more attention to the informal and self-directed everyday learning processes ongoing in professional life and daily living.

3.2 Overview of Learning Theories

In a rough differentiation, behaviorist, constructivist, and cognitive, as well as subject-scientific learning theories can be categorized. These theories are either more object-oriented (in view of what is to be acquired), or subject-oriented (in view of competence-building) and have different explanatory strengths for different complexity levels of learning. For example, easy language learning programs (e.g., vocabulary training) can be planned and designed to a large extent based on behaviorist learning theories, whereas these theories have a limited suitability for explaining the development of complex problem-solving skills or key qualifications.

a) The behaviorist learning theories assume that people can build and change their behavior patterns with stimulus-response conditioning: “Learning according to the principle of classical conditioning is based on contiguity (temporal coupling) by a definite and neutral stimulus” (Zimbardo/Gerring 1996, p. 212). This means that positive consequences (amplifiers, such as recognition or praise) lead to a consolidation of appropriated and exhibited behavior, while a lack of confirmation, or even negative consequences have reverse consequences. On closer examination, however, it becomes obvious that the behaviorist learning theory only has a limited explanatory value and that is also why it has only been attributed very limited practical relevance up until today (e.g., in the instructional design approaches of modern multimedia learning). Robert Gagne has already pointed out that the stimulus-response learning was only one of many forms of learning by which people acquire information and develop skills. He identified a total of 8 forms of learning: 1. signal learning, 2. stimulus-response learning, 3. learning motor chains, 4. learning linguistic chains, 5. learning of distinctions, 6. concept formation, 7. rule learning, and 8. Problem solving (cf. Gagne 1969).

b) Cognitive learning theories assume that learning should encompass the entire context of a series of behaviors. If “thinking” is seen as “the ordering of the doing” (Aebli 1980), then learning, through which problem solving-oriented knowledge and appropriate skills are developed, could also be understood as a comprehensive process in its planning, implementing and controlling sequence of actions. The cognitive learning theories emphasize problem-solving, insightful, and deductive learning and, are therefore particularly suitable for explaining more complex learning processes such as those found in vocational education (but also in higher education) in the development of comprehensive key qualifications. In these learning processes, learning not only takes place through the acquisition of the new (assimilation), but also by the application, restructuring, and further development of already existing cognitive structures (accommodation). The determining factor taken into consideration for learning and educational processes here is not only “the ratio of external stimulus to response (...), but also, the internal control mechanisms such as self-reflection, selective perception, cognitive strategies, ideas and desires.” This is the characterization of the cognitive framework by Baumgärtel, F. (1986, p. 470).

c) Constructivist learning theories assume that cognitive systems are closed autopoietic (self-organized) systems, which are self-referenced and autonomous. Learning cannot be understood as a process in which information can be transported “from outside to the inside,” it is seen much more “as a process of restructuring within a closed system” (Luhmann 1987, p. 60). Teaching can therefore not create stores of knowledge in others or develop skills, it can only initiate and enable restructuring or acquisition processes. In this sense, H. Siebert stated: “It cannot be externally controlled or determined, but only initiated and 'perturbed' (disturbed). Even the audience of a lecture cannot reproduce what has been heard – like a tape recorder – rather, the lecture initiates individual thoughts, associations, emotions, and considerations that are only loosely connected with the lecture” (Siebert 2001, p. 195). The constructivist learning theories are the expression of a changing trend in the psychology of learning: “Learning is no longer seen as an individual information acquisition and behavior change, but is involved in the complex relationships between biological factors, socio-cultural involvement and emotional and motivational processes. Under such a multi-perspective view, it presents itself more and more as “knowledge construction”: learning refers more to the development of knowledge and skills based on 'biological readiness', individual experiences, and existing knowledge structures, which are useful and usable in real situations. New information is linked with previous knowledge, interpreted based on the background of one's own experience and networked, which empowers action in specific situations” (ibid.).

This multi-perspective view directs the learning theory debate towards knowledge management in collaborative relationships. Sharing, further development, and updating of knowledge essentially presupposes that learning is placed, in the sense of involvement, in activity and application contexts. At the same time, sustained learning can result if the learning subjects play an active-interactive role in the learning process and contribute their own experiences, questions, and insights to the development of solutions to problems. Individual and organizational learning appear as the two mutually supporting sides of knowledge management.

d) Subject-scientific learning theories, in a certain sense, radicalize the constructivist view on learning, while still obligated to a highly individualized learning concept. In this case, learning is considered from the point of view of the subject, while completely excluding objective references (requirements, stimuli, etc.). In 1993, Klaus Holzkamp presented a theory, which attributes constitutive relevance to the “learning projects” of the learners. In his opinion, no intentional learning can take place without the “corresponding reasons” of the learning subject (Holzkamp 1996, p. 21). Holzkamp also distinguishes between the “defensive learning” (learning to avoid disadvantage), characteristic of our educational institutions, and an “expansive learning”. Each of these forms of learning follows, in its own way, “a thematic learning justification” that depends to what extent the learners “(...) can achieve an expansion/increase of their quality of life in objective, social contexts through learning or, whether through learning the learners can only achieve a prevention of their degradation and threat” (Holzkamp 1993, p. 190). To achieve truly sustainable learning, in the sense of retention and competence-building, the subject learns only in the expansive form, i.e. when learning “permits”, enables and encourages development of the subject.

Self-reflection 4: What ideas of the learning subject form the basis of these four learning theories? How is the learning person seen? Complete the sentence: “Learning is ...” for each learning theory.

3.3 New Learning Requirements and Learning Methods

The changing demands on human education go hand in hand with new forms of learning. The term transformative learning appears, whereby a “second order” (cf. Cranton 1994) of learning is meant and, in recent debates, organizational and emotional learning are also gaining a major importance (cf. Goleman 1995). Together, these new forms of learning are a blurring of the boundaries of their subject matter and they make use of other than just psychological concepts for the explanation. All these forms of learning also deal with more complex processes in which the learning subject (e.g., an organization) as well as the content (including emotional dimensions) and the learning process (not just acquiring new, but transforming existing patterns or mental models), are to be conceptualized all over again from the beginning.

a) The concept of organizational learning was established at the end of the 70s by C. Agyris and others at MIT and has been the subject of increasing discussion worldwide since the early 90s. As early as 1978, Agyris and Schön had drawn attention to the paradoxical interaction between individual learning and organizational learning and proposed major suggestions for the structuring of organizational learning processes: “Organizations are not merely collections of individuals, yet there is no organization without such collections. Similarly, organizational learning is not merely individual learning, yet organizations learn only through the experience and actions of individuals” (Agyris / Schön 1978, p. 9). From this definition one can deduce that it cannot be about a "replacement" of the individual through an organizational learning, but rather about a more precise clarification and synchronization of both levels of learning. The following definition provides further guidance on the determination of content and learning objectives of organizational learning:

“Organizational learning occurs when members of the organization act as learning agents for the organization, responding to changes in the internal and external environments of the organization by detecting and correcting errors in organizational theory-in-use, and embedding the results of their inquiry into private images and shared maps of organization "(ibid., p. 29).

While individual learning relates to the acquisition of inter-organizational professional expertise and the development of key qualifications, for organizational learning other contents are characteristic. Organizational learning focuses on theories used every day (“theory-in-use”) by members of the organization, i.e. on their shared visions and interpretations of the routines and strategies in everyday company situations. Consequently, in organizational learning, it is more about the transformation of more or less typical organizational explanatory and interpretive knowledge, than of specialized expertise or the promotion of individual key qualifications. If one examines the interaction of individual and organizational learning at the content level, it becomes clear that a moderation and participation-oriented style of leadership is needed, so that employees have the opportunity to participate in the development and transformation of operational reality interpretations. However, employees also need more than just technical skills for such participation. Moderate leadership and advanced skills are in fact, interrelated on the content level. The same also applies at the target level: the systemic development of an organizational competence on the part of employees is essential to ensure that they participate in the development of corporate cultures and the expansion of collective knowledge base of the company.

b) The improvement and development of emotional competencies has been seen for some time now as an increasingly important requirement for successful action by individuals and organizations. Change management, for example, seen as the ability to deal with change and to overcome crises, requires basic emotional skills to cope with anxiety (fear of the new, etc.). The development of these skills essentially refers to the early human developmental experience of self-efficacy versus helplessness, i.e., being secure or threatened. Early imprinted patterns of anxiety and insecurity require learning processes that deeply touch the personality structure; these are easily changed just by training, crash courses, or by keeping to certain supposedly well-worded rules of “emotion management”.

However, guiding principles can help structure appropriate emotional learning processes. In this context, the approach of “The Courage of Change” written by the American, Stephen R. Covey, is helpful. Covey describes among others the necessity to have clear priorities (“Put first things first”), to imagine the outcome of actions (“Begin with the end in mind”), to recognize the constructiveness and changeability of view and ways of assessment (“Paradigm as the map, not the territory”), and to pay attention to the emotional support basis and maintenance of relationships (“Emotional bank account”). These and other indications can be understood as pragmatic elements of a curriculum to improve the competencies of change (cf. Covey 2000).

c) Such profound organizational or emotional learning processes cannot be achieved by interventions or by the relevant “doctrine”, rather they require a transformation of the early programmed patterns of emotion and interpretation. A description of the necessary maturity processes or better still, post-maturity processes as well as self-reflection processes, requires the enablement of transformative learning processes in the sense of second-order learning. A second-order learning is not limited to just acquiring new knowledge and developing new skills, rather its subject matter is the epistemology and the emotion pattern of the individual. One does not only learn new things, but rather in such transformative learning processes, there is a change in the habitual pattern of perception and emotion, whereby the latter should enjoy priority because there is so much evidence that we see the world as we “feel” it.

The path of transformative learning is an intrinsic one. The second-order learning changes not just our knowledge and skills, but also our attitude towards ourselves and the world. We become more conscious of the habitual patterns -ultimately contingent - by which we perceive, or “take-as-true.” (An allusion to the German “wahrnehmen” – “to perceive” and “für wahr nehmen” – “to take-as-true.”) Whoever chooses the path of second-order learning will become more uncertain but, at the same time, stronger. He will free himself from the stable bonds of his habitual thinking, feeling and action and learn that the world is only portrayed to him based on his own inner states. This experience also silences reproach and allows a relaxed and ultimately, more fundamental human nature to surface.

Case study:

Eberhard, head of department of a medium size software distributor, found himself now and again, in his quite ostensibly successful career, in situations in which he believed it necessary to oppose superiors. It always took place in the same pattern: First, he loyally cooperated with his bosses, who then promoted him and confided (entrusted) more and more to him. But after some time he started to become discontent, which always found its expression in him feeling that he actually deserved more, and “in truth”, he was the one ensuring the whole success here. Again and again, situations arose in which he – as he put it – tried to cooperate with his superiors “at eye level”. Sometimes at public presentations of the company policy and success, he would “"forget” to mention the hierarchical assignment of responsibilities, so that to the outside, people increasingly got the impression that actually Eberhard was the company chief. Even internally, i.e. towards other employees, he demanded more and more a kind of vassal loyalty to his crusades, which found expression among others in the fact that he deliberately ignored management directives and agreed on other arrangements with project partners, financiers, he gave unauthorized press statements, etc. and thus repeatedly duped his superiors. Initially, these superiors attempted to clarify the resulting irritations repeatedly by means of dialog – driven by the desire to wisely continue using Eberhard systemically for the growth of the company, but this effort ultimately only led to a progression of his unauthorized acts.

In the end, the responsible supervisors put a stop to it by transferring Eberhard to an area of responsibility where he had to carry out routine tasks according to clear guidelines. This “demotion” sparked a great sense of injustice in Eberhard. “After all, I have done for this company ...” was a standard clause in his conversations with others. Even phrases like “Why are they doing this to me?” came out over and over again. However, these questions also opened doors to an accompanying self-reflection on the issues deeply-rooted in his personality that were feeding his concerns. During a coaching process, these sentences were used to resuscitate biographical memories. The question “When did you use this sentence for the first time in your life?” played an eye-opening role. In this way, his attention was drawn away from the annoying events in the here and now and focused on a transformative learning process. It was actually all about the question “How long have you been like this?” a question, whose meaning and justification Eberhard vehemently resisted initially. His pronouncements, opinions, and statements were trapped in their own certainty, whereby it was clearly evident that this certainty mattered for his emotional state, which was decisive for him in organizing his area of responsibility the way he deemed it bearable. Only very gradually did we succeed in initiating a transformative learning process, during which Eberhard gradually became aware of his preferential manner of seeing himself-in-the-world versus feeling the actual world. In the process, he developed an alternative view of the situation and was able to recognize what feelings he was accustomed to having in such circumstances.

This example shows that transformative learning is second-order learning. As such, its “subject matter” is the internal side of acquisition and it designs the learning process to a greater extent on the structure or the requirements of some external object. By giving the learner the opportunity to reflexively recognize his or her routine manner of dealing with the “real world”, they lose their “so-and-not-otherwise” certainty. Perception and recognition become tangible in the recurrent substance, whereby the possibility at least results for the learner to move away from his repetitive patterns of thinking, feeling and acting. In this way, something new is created and diversity can develop. The innovative power of transformative learning is found in this mechanism: New situations often require a different response from that which experience suggests to us. If we could stop interpreting and arranging situations in the usual way, new patterns in life could develop. This means that although the pattern develops independently of us, we can simply allow it to “occur” or not, based on our own situation. It is often necessary to move away from our set ways in order not to follow the first impulse and respond in the familiar manner; but, perhaps - at first - not to react at all or to act specifically in a different way from the familiar behavior.

In the case described above, Eberhard learned over time that it was not the intention of his superiors to “do anything to him”; rather, their action was based on completely different conditions and constraints, the meaning of which had remained largely hidden to him until then. His usual view of things had been a narcissistic distortion up till then, and he was only able to “read” or “decode” his environment almost exclusively in the light of his personal need for recognition: demands made of him were solely processed from the point of view: “What does this tell me about the recognition of my person?” As a result, he was hardly in a position to constructively deal with dissent, since his inner possibilities always made him see decisions or directives coming from above through the question “Why are you doing this to me?” - a distortion that strained the patience and flexibility of his superiors to the limit. Over the years, these superiors saw themselves confronted with a “sensitivity” and “self-glory,” as they called it, which they endured only because they were convinced of the technical competence of their colleague but otherwise rated him as “difficult.” They endured up to a certain point, before drawing the line - as I said - by transferring him to a manageable area of responsibility. During a nearly two-year self-experience and coaching process, Eberhard understood the situation his earlier, distorted perceptions had gotten him into and he also understood how it lead him to inappropriate behavior, even towards the people who only had positive intentions towards their employees. “What have I done?” That was the question he raised, almost weeping, which marked the fundamental turning point in his thinking, feeling and action. Suddenly, he saw his whole past life in a new light and, shocked, he recognized just how unjust and unfair his emotional disability led him to behave towards the basically constructive-minded executives. It was a logical consequence of this inner transformation process that he began, on his own, to think of how he could make up for damage done - even though it took place many years before. "I have to speak again with my former professor, from whom I resigned at that time out of anger!" - one of the consequences, which he himself drew from this learning process.

This example shows that people who trust themselves to try the inner path of transformative learning become increasingly capable of overcoming the constellations of their emotional lenses. They recognize that we construct our own lives through how we have learned to feel in the world. In a very subtle way, we also, on our own, create that which makes us suffer, because we “need” this suffering, since we have not really learned to live permanently trusting in love, cooperation, happiness, and security as a supportive and unthreatening feeling. Transformative learning is therefore deeply effective identity learning.

Transformative learning does not, or rarely happens through “eureka!” experiences. It is a painstaking process that involves several stages: First, it has to do with an exact reconstruction of the patterns of our own emotional experience. At this level, it is about re-experiencing situations, moods, and feelings of the past emotionally, and tracing the substance they have left behind in us. Sometimes slogans like “No one wants to see me!” or “Why not me...” come into consciousness and represent a tangible anchor that always influences the here and now. Only by recognizing such emotional certainties, - within the context of an appreciative and stabilizing guide – can we cautiously arrive at the recognition that these emotional relics of the past are still present in us, nourishing our thinking, feeling and action: “I think as I feel.” At this stage usually, the simple building blocks of their world view become shockingly clear to the participants and they can gradually begin to realize how they themselves shaped the situations in which they found themselves and nothing else: “I experience the way I think.”

The next stage is the stage of intentionally “putting differences to work” (de Shazer 1991). This requires the creativity of the facilitator and the group, because it is all about generating other interpretations of what was once experienced as harassment, including those interpretations that serve to develop other benevolent assumptions about the annoying other party and to also “substitute” the actual other party by giving him a collective name, such as “the devaluer”. This initially brings the pattern of previous experiences into focus (first transformation), and in an experimental process that can also be effectively supported by sculpting, the possibility is revealed to see the world with different eyes or through the eyes of others (second transformation). In this way, the new experience is initiated, but it still requires a whole series of other exercises before the “devaluer” is really recognized as a personal construction and the opportunity can be created to actually offer the other party the “possibility” to be viewed differently. The person who undergoes such a transformation process does not immediately “know what he should make (think) of it” but, an idea, once thought and thoroughly felt, remains buried as an indelible experience in our minds. It can be reinforced as one processes experiences differently and helps us to learn to think in a new manner. (cf. Figure 3).

Figure 3.1: Stages of transformative learning

Transformative learning is deception learning. The learning process is a deception, i.e., a liberation from earlier self-deceptions, to which our individualization process has led us. This involves the giving up of our own familiar and sticky adhesive forms of thinking, feeling and acting. This transformation is difficult and requires special courage on the part of those who accept it and special didactic and guidance skill on the part of the person who initiates such a process and accompanies it as a coach or facilitator. This is because it has to do with redesigning self-identity, while fully conscious and without anesthesia. “To see and hear, what is there” (Virginia Satir) is the blueprint for this process of de-perception, in which previous self-deceptions are overcome and appropriate ways of dealing with reality can develop, which will prevent us from repeating the same patterns over and over again.

Access to the familiar world of accusations and depression is increasingly blocked as changed feelings obstruct the process. What emerges is a form of deliberate life. This often allows individuals to actually develop for the first time their own energy in the context of what really exists. It requires a transformation of existing meanings by not only allowing new interpretations, but also by sharing them. This step to an “open mind” (Scharmer 2005, p. 12) cannot be achieved through instruction, argumentation, or even dispute, but by a new and changed emotion. It seems to be the “open heart” that creates the conditions to experience anew and also to express this new experience - a mutual relationship of these two learning streams that is still somewhat unclear in the concept of C.O. Scharmer. Although unclear too is the inclusion of the spiritual competence, which motivates the will to be open, so we can allow ourselves in-the-world being and acting experiences. For Scharmer, it is nevertheless an “internal effort” that can help bring out the “the deeper levels of social development” in managers and those responsible for the development and shaping of social actions.

Self-reflection 5: Why are deceptions a necessary condition for transformative learning? What exactly gets “deceived”?

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.