In every model of human performance technology, culture is a consistent element of consideration that seems to always be present. Not only are great pains taken to understand the formalized organizations structures, there is also great emphasis on how the work of that organization actually gets done. In their article, “HPT: The Culture Factor” (2001), authors Roger M. Addison and Klaus D. Wittkuhn, continue to highlight this performance piece by recognizing that fundamentals of HPT are similar from project to project but one thing becomes clear during their post-project reflections, “culture makes a difference” (2001).
When the authors wrote about culture, they framed it in two very important ways. First, they addressed the need to be cognizant of the differences in cultures as the world becomes more and more global. In the classroom, it’s important to recognize and respect the values and ideas of all cultures that one encounters. This is no different in the HPT models that consultants work with in organizations. Global cultures play a huge role in how organizations, whether large or small, do their work.
Secondly, they paid special attention to the fact that all projects will come with their own biases and assumptions that are not only found in the consultants working with the organization, but also that are built into the HPT models as well. I found this to be especially interesting in that some of these assumptions are created because of the context in which the model was created. They point out that every model that has been created around performance improvement was done out of necessity due to a problem or challenge that needed a different approach.
To get around these biases and assumptions, the authors have suggested two HPT tools to help consultants understand organizational culture and begin a successful change management process. The first of these is the cultural audit that will help consultants quickly get to know the culture of a new organization. The second is to always go back to the fact that performance is ultimately a part of a system. If we can fully understand the system, we can then modify the existing models that we have and adapt them to the needs of the organizational culture with which we are working.
Taking the cultural recognition one step further, they then outlined three different cultural models and explained how a basic systems model could be altered to fit the needs of the organization. In each of the models, particularist, collectivist, and ascriptive, the focus was on the relationship between the workers, the objectives, and the supervisors. Each change in culture brought about new relationships among these elements and ultimately, that relationship becomes the point at which we can address the differences in culture.
The final thing that really struck me goes back to the discussions we had last week inside of Blackboard. With all the models available to us, how does one choose the most appropriate one for the task. Addison and Wittkuhn suggest that, “any model is really no more than a working hypothesis that has to prove its usefulness every time” (2001). This single phrase helped me reconsider my current thinking around all of the models that we have seen. They are each a starting point that can and should be altered based on the needs that arise in any given project. I think this is true for any organizational structure that is on the journey to performance improvement regardless of size.
Recognizing cultural differences both globally and organizationally is crucial as accessibility to information and learning opportunities become increasingly global. More than anything, this article has reinforced this concept and has helped me make some connections between many of the models we have been studying. Identifying bias and assumptions are challenging tasks, but they are also vital to the instructional design process.
References
Addison, R., & Wittkuhn, K. (2001). HPT: the culture factor. Performance Improvement, 40(3), 14-19.
The following is the first article response for my IT520 class (Performance Technology) I’ve enrolled in at SIUE. Over the spring semester, I will be posting all of these reflections as appropriate.
In their article, “Performance Support for Performance Analysis” (2004), authors Scott Schaffer (Purdue University) and Ian Douglas (Florida State University) outline a project being done at the Learning Systems Institute at Florida State University where software is being created to support performance analysts as they work with organizations using human performance technology. The software project was started because of an apparent lack of such software that was flexible enough to meet the needs of advanced analysts, while at the same time providing enough scaffolding for novice analysts by providing examples, support and insight into the process. In the process, Schaffer and Douglas are, “developing a performance analysis model for a set of tools configured by users based on the analysis processes that they are most comfortable with or want to experiment with.” (2004, p. 35) In essence, they are creating a piece of software that is flexible enough to allow analysts to use their own language and structures, but that will also give them guidance and an organizational structure that is search-able and object-oriented allowing for reuse of prior resources and analysis.
In this article, a diagram defined the major components of an object-oriented performance support system process. Looking at the diagram there are definitely some parallels between this one and the diagram of the Pershing Performance Improvement Process found in our textbook (Pershing, 2006) but the article seems to simplify it significantly. In the article, there are really only three steps to the planning process: define problem or opportunity, analyze, select solution blend. They then move into the building phase to begin the creation through the software. My initial reaction to this process is that it’s limiting because it seems to focus on finding a problem and fixing it, rather than focusing on creating performance systems as Pershing recommends in chapter 1. (2006)
The biggest benefit of the software seems to be the database of previous client implementations and solutions as well as past analysis of other performance improvement projects. I can definitely see how creating a search-able database would help in future projects. It also would provide the ability to make detailed notes about specific project allowing the analyst to reflect on successes and challenges after projects are complete, while at the same time, providing the transparency for both the client and any team members during the course of the project.
If I were in the position of analyzing an organization, I could definitely use the guidance of a generic system that would help me determine needs and solutions and organize myself. As I gain more experience, the ability to customize the software to meet my needs would be very beneficial in my work. As I read the article, I was surprised that the authors insinuated that there were few other software options available that were not created to solve a very specific problem. I also wonder what other support structures are available for performance analysts. I’m sure they are plentiful and well designed but, according to the authors, there’s definitely a need for a customizable solution that allows the team members the ability to share knowledge and build upon past experiences.
References
Pershing, J. A. (Ed.). (2006). Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Schaffer, S., & Douglas, I. (2004). “Performance support for performance analysis”. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 48(2), 34-39.
10 years ago last December, I graduated from SIUE with a master’s in Instructional Technology. At the time, I had no idea where that degree would take me or where I would be 10 years later. Over those 10 years, I have spent time as a corporate trainer, classroom teacher and Technology Integration Specialist. As 10 years passed, I took some time to think about why I even started that program and the goals that I had then. At that point, I was teaching a class called Modern Media and had a room full of computers that I need to figure out how to use with my class. I began dabbling in web design, video editing and productivity applications to make my class work the way I wanted it to.
Upon graduating, I took nine months before returning to the classroom and establishing my “paperless classroom” in 2004. One of the things that I’m grateful for is that I use my degree on a daily basis and it has guided much of my career including being an adjunct professor. Now I find myself back in the classroom as a grad student enrolled in the Web-based Learning certificate that didn’t exist when I was enrolled before. This spring I am taking a class called Performance Technology. We are in our first week and I find it fascinating. I’m just getting started, but I’m seeing even more of the big picture when looking at the inner workings of districts and schools that I read about and work with. As a part of the class, we are required to find various articles dealing with our text and write summaries and reactions to them. I plan to post them on this blog to document my learning and thinking.
Any time students are introduced to a text, concept or idea, there is a time period where they are looking to their teacher to make sense of it for them. At this point their understanding is a “borrowed” one in which they have adopted the view of their teacher and their teachers understanding of whatever “it” is. During this time period, they are contemplating, digesting, and transforming the content into their own understanding. It’s not until they have a full grasp of the content that they truly “own” the idea and use it as a part of their own creations. It’s during that initial period that mentor texts can bring meaning and understanding to student work. However, this understanding is dependent on their teachers understanding. It comes with all prior knowledge, biases and background influences of the teacher that is then transferred with that “borrowed understanding”.
In my district we are heavy users of Grant Wiggings, Understanding by Design framework. He refers to this basic concept as A-M-T, Acquire, Make Meaning and Transfer. When we look at mentor texts with students, regardless of the medium, we are acquiring understanding and knowledge. It is strictly fact finding and information gathering. That acquisition will then lead to students making meaning of that knowledge. Whether that’s through creating a video or writing a piece, they are taking the knowledge of the skill or concept that they’ve acquired and using it for an assignment based on something that we’ve asked them to do. This scaffolding gives them practice with the tool and moves their understanding more towards something that they begin to know. However, “knowing” can’t be the end goal. Even having an understanding can’t be where this ends. Until students transfer this knowledge, skill or concept to their own world and to their own work, independent of a teacher-driven assignment, I’m not sure that they “own” the knowledge, skill or concept.
As I think about this series and the course of events that have led to it, I can’t help but reflect on the idea of all of the knowledge that I’ve “borrowed” from this group. It’s expanded my understanding of mentor texts and of the role that they play in the classroom. When I started blogging with my students 8 years ago, I did so to make for a more authentic learning experience by giving them the opportunity for an audience. We floundered through it and I got better through experimentation and looking to my own mentors online. When we tried our first podcast that year, it was because of the mentors that were experimenting at that time as well. Each of these forays into the world of digital writing and creating provided me with the opportunity to borrow my understanding of content, process and technique from others.
I know that my thinking is incomplete here, but I’m spending a great deal of time considering how this fits into what I’ve been writing about the past week.
Join us at CSD for the free DENVirtual Conference with a STEM focus on Saturday, January 28th. The DEN SCIcon is a live-streamed event that CSD hosts with breakfast & lunch. We will also provide small group & 1-1 support and learning during the entire day. The doors open at 7:30 a.m. and we begin at 8am. The day will wrap up by 2:30 p.m. Come as you are, for as long as you can. Share with your educator family & friends. Contact Stephanie Madlinger at smadlinger@csd.org for more information.
The last of the three types of mentoring that I think of when I look at students creations is kind of a combination of the other two, (content and technique). This last mentoring type is “process”. Last year, some high school art students created a promotional video for our district film festival. To create this video they spent around 8 hours drawing the logo for the festival and then we sped it up so that the entire drawing took about 90 seconds. Here’s their video:
I love watching that video.
When we published the video for the festival, I sent the link to Franki’s who shared it with her daughter. She found inspiration and wanted to share her own process as well as try the technique. Valentine’s Day was coming and she was going to decorate a Valentine’s Day box so she set up a camera and recorded her own creation process. She then sped up her video and shared it out.
What’s equally neat about this is not only did a student creation inspire another student. I went back and showed the Valentine’s Day box video to the students who created the first video who were then inspired to continue creating other videos. The recursiveness of these videos and the sharing that can occur is astounding to me as I think about the possibilities.
As I’ve said before, I think it’s really important to understand, recognize and embrace the inspiration that students can get from each other. As a classroom teacher, I think that’s why I always liked the peer editing so much. When I first started teaching I would ask students to give fairly surface level feedback on their classmates writing. But I remember the first time that I added one question to my response sheet; “What inspired you about this piece?” It was as if I had just given my students permission to connect with the writing of their peers and given them a stake in it. That one question changed the way I ran my workshop and my students responded. I think the best part was that they weren’t writing for me anymore. They were writing to inspire each other and it changed the nature of writing in my classroom. It wasn’t magical and it certainly didn’t work every time for every writing that my students did. But when it did work… Wow.
Yesterday I wrote about how content can be the basis for mentoring when you take an initial text and, using the same kind of content, morph it into something similar but different. Yesterday it was Gary Brolsma’s, Numa Numa video. Today I want to talk about a second way to look at mentor texts, that of technique. In the writing workshop this can take the shape of students analyzing a particular style of writing and emulating it in one’s own works. Continuing my theme of thinking about how this can translate to video and the creation process when it comes to that medium, the techniques that are used in movie making can often be imitated through software. One of my favorite ways this is done is through animation.
The following video is one created by a group of elementary students who were studying ancient Egypt and tasked with telling a story about an event. Rather than write a paper, they chose to tell their story through clay-mation and create their own video. With support for their technology integrator and teacher, they created a storyboard to guide them through their story and began the revising and rewriting until they had it just the way they wanted. By their own admission, they hadn’t ever written that much for an assignment ever before.
Once they had written the story and felt ready they immediately began diving into the clay to make the characters. This was the fun stuff. The stuff they could do without planning, or so they thought. Having never created an animated movie before, they had no idea what was in store for them. They knew they had a story inside that they had written out, but making it come to life in clay was a completely different thing. To guide them, their teacher had them look for examples to show them how to go about making an animated video. They found a few and got started, but after only a few frames, they realized they needed more direction and turned to the teacher for help. The teacher, who had also never created animation before called in reinforcements in the form of the building’s technology integrator. Without this available support, there’s a very real chance that the project would have died right there as the teacher was not what you’d consider a techy. This is the end result.
From where I sit, this was a successful project. The students told their story and showed their understanding and ability to transfer their knowledge to a new medium. However, there are many lessons to be learned through this project’s story including:
The students who created this video were creative and resourceful, but they didn’t create clay-mation. They had seen it somewhere and it it had inspired them to try something new. In one of their minds they had a mentor piece that guided them to this point.
We can’t assume that because something has to do with computers that students will be able to do it without support. They needed feedback, guidance and instruction to be successful.
Bringing in new mediums can change the scope of a project making it more challenging or complex.
When given choice and opportunity, students can and will create content that surpasses what we had envisioned.
My next example is from a middle school. In this student’s class they were reading, To Build A Fire, by Jack London. In this case, the student was talented when it came to drawing and also wanted to create an animated story taking an excerpt from the book as her inspiration. She had seen animation techniques and wanted to try something a little more advanced and ambitious. This is her creation.
In this case, the student was inspired by technique as well as content and went about creating because of it. She knew of the techniques and chose to put them to work in their own project.
When a work (be that a video, text or other medium) leads someone to explore a space that is unfamiliar to them and gives them guidance, it can most certainly be classified as a ment0r to the new work. Whether it’s mentoring content, technique or both, these are the basis for much of the creation going on in today’s world.
As this series goes on, it strikes me that each of us involved are adding to the thinking of and mentoring each other through our writing. Thinking about Kevin’s example of the choose your own adventures through video, or Tony’s project with his kids, I will take these “mentor texts” with me as I work with teachers and add to their thinking while they add to mine. The more I think about this subject, the more I see the inspiration that mentor texts can bring to students.
Tomorrow I will pull in the final way that mentor texts can influence the decisions that our students make and inspire them to create. Until then, be sure to check out the posts of the others participating in the series and please, let us know if you are thinking/writing about mentor texts as we are. We want to learn from you.
Last evening as I was writing my last post on cultural participation, my son came strolling in with a little handheld video camera he and his sister had received for their birthdays. He was wandering around the house with a stuffed animal and giving it a “tour” of the house. Every now and then he would turn the camera around and to face himself and his bear and “interview” it. I stopped writing and just watched him work the camera and began to think about his thinking process. What decisions was he making as he was creating this video and what made him decide that this was what he wanted to spend his Sunday night doing.
Trying to be as stealth as I could, I observed him out of the corner of my eye so he wouldn’t stop and I followed him through the rest of his home tour. Hysterically, he was talking about the colors of the walls and the “possibilities” for each room. Asking his bear questions about why he wanted to live here and what kind of work the bear did, it suddenly dawned on me where all this was coming from. On New Years Eve we were with some friends and HGTV was on with one of those shows where they take perspective buyers to different houses and they decide which one they were going to buy. In each home they take a tour of the house, talking about possibilities and the layout. While at the time he seemed far more interested in playing with his friends, this brief interaction with a TV show that was “on in the background” made an impression on him and inspired him to make his own creation.
We haven’t shared it or put it online and probably won’t, but simply the process of creating has changed his way of thinking just a little. When I put him to bed I asked him how his video went. He told me that it was fun to do and his bear learned a lot about the house, (The kid is seriously funny!!) but that next time he’d do it better. I didn’t push to find out what his version of “better” entails, but it was clear that he had learned about not only the technical side (he thought the video was too jumpy), but also about the creative process and he was thinking about what he would do next time.
The timing of this couldn’t have been better. Sometimes those mentor texts that we find aren’t even at the forefront of our thought processes. Of course we need to be meaningful in our choices as we model for students, but at the same time, I think we need to honor our students’ choices of where they find their own inspiration for the things they create.
One of my very distinct memories from my childhood was when I was 7 years old and the second installment of the Star Wars trilogy, The Empire Strikes Back, was released. I hadn’t seen the first movie and didn’t really know anything about it, but my dad was watching the news and there were all these people out in California that were dressed up in all these costumes to see a movie. I remember seeing Chewbacca and Darth Vader and thinking, “What are these people doing?” Here they were standing in line to see this movie, but they weren’t just standing in line, they wanted to experience it and be a part of it. It wasn’t until quite a few months later that I was whisked away to an Indianapolis theater by my father and uncle for my first Star Wars experience. I was surprised to see absolutely no one dressed up as that was really why I wanted to go – to experience the spectacle first hand.
Much has changed in our culture since 1980, but the idea of people participating in cultural events is certainly nothing new. The classroom is no different. As teachers making connections between content and the everyday lives of our students, we constantly bring the outside world into our instructional spaces and invite students to participate. Over the last 10 years, the opportunities to participate have grown exponentially. Much of this has to do with the digital tools and connectedness that we experience everyday. Thanks to the internet, our students have the opportunity to see, hear and experience events on a global level. But typically, it doesn’t stop there. They can actually participate and emulate those events in the virtual world. Recognizing the power of this will be an important piece to seeing how these cultural events can provide mentoring for students for in their digital creations.
In preparing for my part of the NCTE presentation on mentor texts this year, I remembered an example that Michael Wesch had showed during one of his presentations. Wesch, a social anthropologist at Kansas State University, reminded me about Gary Brolsma. In 2004, Gary sat in front of his computer, turned on his webcam and recorded himself doing a lipsync to the song, “Dragostea din tei”, by Moldovan pop band, O-Zone.
This video immediately became an internet sensation being linked to and sent to email addresses throughout the world. While the idea of videoing yourself singing a song that you like was by no means new in 2004, the ability to share with people everywhere and for the video to become viral was. With over 7 million views, Gary’s video is still one of the most watched videos of all time on the internet. With no production quality (watch the video if you don’t believe me), the appeal of this video passes all understanding (at least in my own mind). However, it’s clear that the world was interested. Shortly after the Numa Numa video was created, others started creating videos copying Brolsma’s song and actions. In the following video, a boy who seems to be middle school aged, takes the Numa Numa song and, using it as a sort of mentor text, creates his own video on a webcam and, because of availability of YouTube, he uploaded it and shared his version with the world.
In some way, Gary’s video influenced and inspired this young man to create his own video and share it online. Whether it was poking fun at the original or whether it was because he liked the song or even if he just got caught up in the hype that was surrounding the press that Gary was getting, a video was created and share. Gary wasn’t alone, the next video is of an adult who wanted get in on it.
Each of these videos took the same premise and idea from Gary and copied, expanded upon and emulated his basic ideas. Why they did it is unknown. It could have been just for fun or because for a two year period, that was the thing to do. However, both of these people took the content of the video and used it to make their own creation. They used the “text” as a starting point and went from there.
Not all of the videos that were created in homage to “the Numa Numa kid” were straight copies though. In the following video, a student (of unknown age) creates a video in an animation class as a tribute to the Numa Numa craze. In the video he uses a software program called Maya to animate a lego character watching and copying Brolsma’s actions. While you watch the video, pay close attention to how he uses camera angles and character actions. To a certain extent, he is telling a story while showing his proficiency with a piece of software (which was actually probably the overall goal of the project). From the head turns to the arm movements and even the “head bobs”, creator Jeff Dingman is using the content of the original video as a starting point.
Think about the decisions that a writer makes when composing a piece. Now add on top of that writing, the decisions that Jeff had to make in order to animate his character. While the medium is different and the content was essentially created initially, he made it his own. In the same way, the content of a mentor text gives students a starting point. It’s a beginning, not an ending and the inspiration that comes from there will help to guide them through their creation process.
Students create more and more everyday and have more options for distributing their creations than they ever have. Because of this, their “mentors” are changing as are their influencers and those who inspire them. I would argue that content is only one of three types of ways that these creators can be mentored by texts. The other two I will address in posts later this week. Each of these videos was created using the same base content; a song and a guy in front of a webcam.
Have mentor texts changed? I don’t know about that. It’s in our nature to copy that which we like and to want to participate. In his book, Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century, Henry Jenkins says that,
“Participatory culture is emerging as the culture absorbs and responds to the explosion of new media technologies that make it possible for average consumers to archive, annotate, appropriate, and recirculate media content in powerful new ways.”
We are participants in our culture who take the content that we see and with which we interact and try to frame it in our own lives. Mentor texts in all forms give us that starting point, but it’s important to recognize the need for the meaning of “texts” to be expanded to include content like what Gary inadvertently made with a webcam. We are in a time of change and the mentors that we find all around us, if harnessed, can guide us in interesting, enlightening ways. Just like 30 years ago when folks dressed up to see Star Wars, participation in our culture will drive much of the creation that is made and shared by people of all ages. It’s time to see “text’ as more than words on a page and “mentors” as more than just that which we, as educators, supply our students.
8 years ago this morning, my wife and I got up at 5, prepared for our day, and got into our car. Driving out of our subdivision, we had a very surreal feeling. Everything was about to change. The next time we stepped into our home, our family would be twice it’s existing size. Most importantly, we were about to embark on the most difficult, but easily the most important and rewarding job we’d ever do. We were about to become parents. Max and Molly came into our world that morning and legitimately rocked our world. Nothing has been the same since but under no circumstances do I ever want them to go back. So thanks to my wife for creating these fantastic little ones for us to have in our lives. They are truly awesome, wonderful kids and I thank God for them everyday.
Happy Birthday Max and Molly!!! Yes, I’ll come and make you Yoda pancakes now.
