Ends and Means LO7970

Nickols@aol.com
Wed, 19 Jun 1996 19:03:44 -0400

In responding to LO7923, Fritz Matzdor writes (in part):

<< Since then I have begun to think even more carefully about the method of a
learning event reflecting its end... Does this make sense? >>

It certainly does. Let me share with you an example from my own
experience. Consider it an "oldie but goodie."

More than 20 years ago, I was being trained as an organization
development (OD) specialist. This was in the heyday of T-groups,
sensitivity training, humanistic psychology, and so on. Non-directive
facilitation was in, objectives-oriented training was out. In one session,
I asked the trainers their objectives, what they expected us to get out
of the session. They replied that they had none, that the session was
an "experiential" session, and we would get out of it what we put into
it. In very unpolite, enlisted-Navyman-chief-petty-officer terms, I called
them liars. They had designed the structure of the session, I said, and
that implied intent, which they were refusing to share. I told them I would
analyze the structure of the session and expose the intent to view, which
I did. The structure I identified was one of them observing our behavior in
situations designed to test behavioral flexibility under a variety of
conditions.
It wasn't "experiential" learning as much as it was experimental. We were
"specimens under the microscope" to them. Things got very lively after that.

Pre-imposed structure always signals intent. Analysis of structure will
frequently reveal that intent. Sometimes, however, those who impose
the structure are incompetent and the structure will not match up with
stated intent, and the intent manifest in the structure itself is not what
is intended. (That, by the way, accounts for a great deal of what some
people call "unintended outcomes.") In my case, incompetence wasn't
the issue, the intent reflected in the structure was indeed the intent. In
the situation you described, it might be the case that incompetence
was at work. Then again, maybe not. If you think about the structure
that was imposed, what intent might have been at work? Maybe there
was what used to be called "a hidden agenda" (which is frequently not
as well hidden as those who try to hide it might like).

As for instructional methods reflecting the ends of learning, if you
are not familiar with the work of Robert Gagne, especially his book
"The Conditions of Learning," I encourage you to read it. He makes
a compelling case for matching method with outcomes and provides
excellent guidance for how to do so. Method should match outcome,
which is part of what I meant by "ends determining means."

Regards,

Fred Nickols
nickols@aol.com

-- 

Nickols@aol.com

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>