©collins ncge september 20061 injecting surprise into a course or module: using synergistic...

©Collins NCGE September 2006 1

Injecting Surprise into a Course or Module: Using Synergistic Learning Methods and the Art

of Participatory Learning

Dr. Lorna Collins

National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship

session outline• Background• What are synergistic learning methods?• Experiential session

– Where will these methods be of use? – What is the value of them?– What are challenges?

• Discussion• Linkage to Entrepreneurial Outcomes

Template

health warning

• this is an experiment • methods described have not been used in

a short session like this before• meant to be illustrative – to give a feel for

what they are like• more detail available afterwards, readings,

hard copy examples of exercises, materials

highlight linkage with Entrepreneurial Outcomes Template

• Main links with– Creating empathy with the entrepreneurial life

world– Managing relationships

B. Students ‘feel’ the life-world of

the entrepreneur

A. Key entrepreneurial behaviours, skills and

attitudes developed

C. Key entrepreneurial values inculcated and

Emotional response calculated

D. Motivation towards an entrepreneurial lifestyle and

occupation has been built

G. Students grasp key how to’s of developing

holistically managed sustainable

entrepreneurial organisations

E. Students grasp the key generic entrepreneurship competencies

in practice

H. Students understand the relationships they need to develop

with key stakeholders

F. Students understand the process (stages)

of setting up an organisation

Creating empathy with the entrepreneurial life world

• Students need to clearly empathise with, understand and ‘feel’ the life-world of the entrepreneur– living with uncertainty and complexity– having to do everything under pressure– coping with loneliness– trust relationships– learning by doing, copying, making things up, problem

solving– managing interdependencies– working flexibly

Managing relationships• Understanding the nature of the relationships they need

to develop with key stakeholders and are familiar with them

• identify all key stakeholders impacting upon any venture• understand the needs of all key stakeholders at the start

–up and survival stage• know how to educate stakeholders• know how to learn from them• know how best to build and manage the relationship.

motivation to develop this approach

• Based on work with colleagues

• We believe– different learning methods could be used to

instil entrepreneurial ethos in students– taking a tripartite approach - existing

entrepreneurs, nascent entrepreneurs and educators beneficial to all learners

– entrepreneurship education is valuable to all students – not just business and management

what we did – underlying assumptions• Entrepreneurs have knowledge and experience to share

with others• Students have knowledge and experience - may be

different but valuable to all• Collaborative and co-learning environments are the

perfect medium for encouraging this exchange of information

• Involving all parties in development, design, and delivery is likely to lead to effective learning of entrepreneurial knowledge, skills and behaviour

• Creating mutuality and reciprocity between students, entrepreneurs and academics is beneficial – challenging but beneficial

what we did - experiment

• 15 students were self-selecting – different disciplines

• 5 entrepreneurs were local – all industries

• Academic ‘pool’ from several East Midlands universities

• 3 member development team from two different universities; also members of academic pool

what we did - programme

• Ran over ten weeks

• 10 sessions in total

• Each session was four hours in length

• Held at different venues

• Including a project that ran over the 10 weeks

what we did – approach used• Action research and learning approach to

developing programme and methods• Delivered whole in entrepreneurial, experiential and

participatory manner – encompassing qualities in delivery that were trying to be instilled in participants

• Developed ground rules - specific and designed to create a safe environment for all participants – who all agreed to the experiment

Synergistic (participatory) learning results from the interaction between people having different

experiences and perspectives where the potential for mutual learning is increased

• Used where? social and community enterprise contexts (environmental sector)

• Grounded in a constructivist learning theory– learner is actively involved in the joint

enterprise of learning with the educator and together they create new meanings

– Social construction of knowledge– synergistic learning involves everyone in the

learning process

Participatory methods: allow for articulation and interaction

between different perceptions, interpretations

and arguments between people when problem solving and

developing new ideas

• Cooperation – students work with entrepreneurs and academics to

determine priorities; responsibility to direct process lies with entrepreneurs and academics

• Co-learning – students, entrepreneurs and academics share knowledge

and create new understandings - work together to form plans of action

• Consultation – student’s opinions are sought - entrepreneurs and

academics analyze and decide course of action to take • Collective action

– students set own agendas and act to carry out the action without the help of entrepreneurs and academics

Ground rules – modified from the full set of rules

• Everyone is responsible for what takes place; • Mutual respect for other participants; • A non-judgemental approach with shared and

open communication between all participants; • Co-operation and collaboration; • Agree to commit to try anything and be open-

minded (to try to say ‘maybe’ instead of ‘no’).

• Three observers/adjudicator – one for each group, provide objective feedback on what goes on in the group and adjudicate

• Three exercise groups – 5 people in each group• Three different roles needed in each group

– 3-5 Students – ratio matches our programme– 1 Educator– 1 Entrepreneur

Students, educators and entrepreneurs - take 4 minutes now to get into role

• Students – focus on deciding how you will be marked, what the lecturer wants from you at the end of this exercise, or where you are going to go out tonight!

• Educators – focus on learning outcomes • Entrepreneurs – focus on taking short cuts

and breaking the rules and winning the exercise – being entrepreneurs you can break this rule!

Using cooperation method – Exercise 1

• Students work together with entrepreneur and academic to determine priorities required to achieve the task – build the tower

• Entrepreneur and educator direct the process – in this case, the process of getting the tower built to specification

Task – Exercise 1

• You are required to use 3 sheets of A4 paper and make a tower to the following specification:– able to stand constructed for a minimum of 30

seconds – over 10 cm high

• You cannot use any other items to build or support the tower – only 3 sheets of A4 paper

• Total time to complete task 10 minutes

Observers – Exercise 1

• There is a 10 minute time limit

• The group with the highest tower wins

• Breaking the rules results in disqualification

• Adjudicate that the tower meets spec

Adjudication – Exercise 1

• Take note of the following:– Did the tower meet the spec?– Did everyone stay in role?– Did anyone break the rules?

Co-learning

• students, entrepreneurs and educators all share their knowledge and work together to form the plan of action for completing the task – to build a tower to spec

• there is a 10 minute limit on the task

Task - Exercise 2 – 10 minutes

• You are required to use 3 sheets of A4 paper and make a tower that meets the following specification: – able to stay constructed for a minimum of 30 seconds – over 20 cm high– able to withstand windy conditions

• You cannot use any other items to build or support the tower – only 3 sheets of A4 paper

• Total time to complete task - 10 minutes

Observers – Exercise 2

• There is a 10 minute limit

• The group with the highest tower wins but it must be able to withstand a outward breath from someone about 3 metres away

• Breaking the rules results in disqualification

Adjudication – Exercise 2

• Take note of the following:– Did the tower meet the spec?– Did everyone stay in role?– Did anyone break the rules?– What did you observe?

Feedback within groups – students, entrepreneurs, educators and observers

• For each method, how did it feel for the students, the entrepreneurs, the educators?

• Focus on the method not the exercise itself• 8 minutes in groups to discuss and record thoughts• Observer to serve as reporter/feedback ensemble

discussion - 1

• What would be the impact of using these methods?– Students– Entrepreneurs– Educators

• What do you think would be the challenges of using these methods in a course/module?

feedback - impact on staff and students

• For educators - time consuming?; knowledge levels variable; difficult to manage? Not sure of outcomes – ambiguity?

• For students – find it difficult; willingness to take risks?; work together with others; do something that is open ended – may be unwilling to do this given desire to achieve high marks – buy-in? ability to operate comfortably?

challenges

• Flexibility • Accredited units require consistency,

replicability• Resource intense – finding entrepreneurs• Experience and knowledge set maybe

different from expected standard • Risky

what else might be needed to make these methods work well from

students perspective?

• Preparation, before, during, after

• Consider:– Attitudes– Skills– Knowledge

Attitudes - accepted– Willingness to try something new and to be

wrong, and to make mistakes– Helping others – collaboration is vital

• Skills – which need to be introduced beforehand and are enhanced through using these methods– Reflection – an understanding and the ability

to engage in the reflective process– Observation – being practiced at watching

what is going on around them; able to interpret and translate

Reflective learning is the key element in learning from experience – it is the core difference between whether a person repeats the same experience several times…or learns from experience in such a way that he or she is cognitively (thinking) changed or affectively (emotion/feelings) changed’ (Boyd and Fales, 1983)

student’s knowledge levels

• How they learn best?

• What is their preferred personal method?

• Language – do they need to know the basics of business, and be able to speak with entrepreneurs – and visa versa?

discussion - 2

• is there any added value in using these methods?

• where?

• for whom?

where is the added value?• Wider range of learning outcomes achieve

- ?’able• Unpredictable, open-ended learning that takes

place can be surprising and stimulating• Personal interaction, team teaching = dynamic,

complex, emotional – for entrepreneurs the stimulation and challenge was a ‘buzz’

• Taking people outside their experience zone has unexpected outcomes for all – good and bad

• Risks can be taken – ground rules offer mutual protection

added value for students

• Students have a chance to feel ‘real’ world through relationship and interaction with entrepreneur

• They can observe how the entrepreneur:– Learns– Solves problems– Thinks about things– Gets things done

summary

• Discussed participatory methods

• Experienced them first hand

• Discussed how they might be used

• More information available

thank you

any questions?

©collins ncge september 20061 injecting surprise into a course or module: using synergistic...

collins ncge

key stakeholders

key entrepreneurial

key entrepreneurial

entrepreneurial lifestyle

entrepreneurial ethos

management slide

synergistic learning

Documents

ncge webinar: teaching the geography of food

south china sea ncge 2013 don zeigler

20061 stekas apskaita instrukcija original

injecting [ 2 ] › pdf › hrdvd5.pdf · when you stop...

digitising it- injecting innovation

injecting molding machine

reading writing thinking ncge 2010

economic geography rick gindele ncge 2013

public injecting, harm reduction services

ncge august 3, 2013

supervised injecting facilities ‘the case’

ncge pdo (nicaragua)

final exam antenna 20061

injecting clock in java

normas apa 20061

safer injecting

some poli geo slides from ncge

injecting enthusiasm

injecting faults for error evaluation

peru delegation introduction slides naaee - ncge - nabt