Cooperation
Reading through
the cooperation notes in reader 3 made me analyse what kind of a person I am –
one who cooperates or one who competes? I decided to try the game of
‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/playground/pd.html My instinct was
to cooperate on each turn, which led to an equal score. I decided to play again,
to go against my instinct and compete in each turn. This resulted in me
winning, but I was warned that I was “flirting with a [flashing] inconceivably
foul fate”. Axelrod ultimately found
that to ‘win’ the game you should adopt the strategy of Antol Rapoport called
‘TIT FOR TAT’ that involves cooperating on the first move and subsequently
copying what the other player did on their previous move. (Axelrod, R, 1984)
Although I am
mindful that this may be the ‘winning’ method, I don’t necessarily consider it wholly
beneficial to my professional practice in a school environment. The very nature
of what education is for is to collectively achieve for the greater good
through cooperation. I would be naive to believe that ‘TIT FOR TAT’ did not
exist in the school environment and also that it may be beneficial in other
more corporate environments, but I don’t see that it could be of ultimate
benefit to my profession practice. Id like to perceive my colleagues not as prisoners
concerned
with lessening their time in jail but more as fig wasps collectively limiting
the eggs they lay in fig trees (otherwise, the trees would suffer). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cooperation)
This simple game
proved to be a good analogy of the outcomes I experience when people compete or
cooperate in the professional practice of my teaching environment. My place of
work is currently undergoing restructuring, which I believe is bringing out
some peoples desire to compete for their own benefit, rather than that of the
wider network of fellow employees or most importantly the students. I am
currently struggling to work alongside someone who is competing. The majority
of our team are trying to pull together and cooperate at this difficult time,
but having someone within our group that is solely competing to preserve
themselves at (what seems like) all costs, is having a negative impact on our
working environment. On a more positive side, this situation has brought other
members of the team, myself included, closer together forming a stronger and
more cooperative group.
Affiliation
I am quite an
introverted person. I am not sure if this comes from my South African
background as Hofstede may suggest, or if I am this way by nature. A principle
of the affiliation theory is homeostasis (O’Connor and Rosenblood, 1996).
“This principle
states that our need for affiliation within each one of us may differ, but we
each seek to balance our interactions with others to a preferred level.” (O’Connor
and Rosenblood, 1996 p267)
Being more of an
introvert I am a reserved person, as O’Connor and Rosenblood suggest I don’t
feel the need for high levels of social stimulation.
On reflection, I
feel that my reserved nature has both positive and negative affects in my
professional practice. Being more introverted allows me time to stand back and
observe situations in a calm, thoughtful and considered way. Staying calm is a
really important skill when trying to avoid or diffuse volatile situations in
my workplace. I think it can also make me more approachable to the students who
can associate my company as a place of comfort at a time when they are facing
personal difficulties. My shy and introvert nature often makes it difficult for
me to be forthcoming in networking with new people or on open forums. I had
never really thought or accepted how important networking was until I started
this course and now I realise how much I need to push myself to progress in
this area.
I agree with
Crisp and Turner, that affiliation is a social process that provides us ‘with a
network of support that will help us when we are in need’ (Crisp and Turner,
2007, p266). It is really important to me that I have a network of people
around me both personally and professionally, even if its just a trusted few,
who I can turn to when I need constructive advice. It is also important to me
that I can offer good advice and support in return. My professional practice
can be very rewarding but also extremely challenging. I wouldn’t be able to do
my job successfully if I didn’t have the support of the colleagues I affiliate
with at work.
Social
Constructivism
The ideas that
existing and future new networks are ‘made’ and the meanings they make are not
predetermined, is really relevant to online networks today. Despite, often huge
multinational companies spending millions on a professional or social forum, it
is the user who ultimately determines its success. We have seen the demise of
Friends Reunited and Bebo, replaced by the more dominant Facebook. There are
new forums appearing all the time, with their success being decided by the user,
ending the once dominant model of objectivism.
“Objectivism-the
notion that truth and meaning reside in their objects independently of any
social consciousness”. (Crotty M, 2005,
p42-44)
It is not just
the success or failure that is decided by the user, but often the use itself.
An example of this I have witnessed in my professional practice is with
BlackBerry phones. They were initially marketed towards the business sector,
but the BlackBerry Messenger (BBM), which is free, allows users to send one
message to many and is untraceable by the authorities, has made it appealing to
young people. These factors also illustrate why it was a key communication tool
with young people in the London Riots. According to a recent Ofcom study the
majority (37%) of British teens use a BlackBerry handset.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/08/london-riots-facebook-twitter-blackberry
The constructionist
questions put forward by Humphrey about whether nature on earth existed before
we represented it in our minds could be seen as an argument that is outdated in
today’s technological age. We now live in a time in which completely new
digital phenomena are being ‘born’. Networks that we use today
literally didn’t exist before humans constructed them from scratch. (Humphrey
1993, p.17)
“Were there not
volcanoes, and dust-storms and starlight long before there was any life on
Earth? Did not the sun rise in the East and set in the West? Did not water flow
downhill, and light travel faster than sound? The answer is that if you had
been there, that is indeed the way the phenomena would have appeared to you.
But you were not there: no one was. And because no one was there, there was
not-at this mindless stage of history-anything that counted as a volcano, or a
duststorm, and so on. I am not suggesting that the world had no substance to it
whatsoever. We might say, perhaps, that it consisted of 'worldstuff'. But the properties
of this worldstuff had yet to be represented by a mind.” (Humphrey 1993, p.17)
In relation to
professional practice, completing this section has made me realise that there
are many different networking frameworks available, but I need to actively
search and utilise them if they are to be of any use to me.
Connectivism
The idea that
connectivism rejects traditional ideas of learning (i.e. that knowledge is
‘transferred’ from teacher to student) instead embracing alternative principles
and processes is something that is implemented in my professional practice.
Simply transferring knowledge is not an appropriate or engaging way of teaching
young people with severe behavioral issues. (Siemens G, 2004)
To keep
up-to-date with ideas on different methods of informal teaching I use a site
called infed (the informal education homepage and encyclopedia of
informal education), which
was established in 1995 at the YMCA in London. I find this network really
useful in my professional practice as it provides me with a source on which I
can draw inspiration when I am finding it difficult to get through to a
particular student. The site allows a space in which people can make comment,
share their ideas and suggest further reading. It is really helpful when people
extend on or put existing theories in context as not all students fall comfortably
into certain categories. Siemens raises awareness of this in the following
extract:
Many important
questions are raised when established learning theories are seen through
technology. The natural attempt of theorists is to continue to revise and evolve
theories as conditions change. At some point, however, the underlying conditions
have altered so significantly, that further modification is no longer sensible.
An entirely new approach is needed.
(Siemens G, 2004)
Communities
of practice
I have been
involved in the past in this kind of community. I lived within a creative space
for a year that was social, informal and consisted of people that all practiced
in the arts. The group was self-organising, with no particular hierarchical.
The type of events we held or work we did depended on the people that were
either living or participating in the space at the time.
Although the
principles of this type of community practice are good in theory, my experience
was overall quite the opposite. There were many ideas and aims, but because
there was no hierarchical structure, it was rare for anyone to take on the
responsibility of putting the ideas into practice. When ideas were put into
practice, they were done so in a disorganised and chaotic manner and were never
completed to their full potential. Overall it was a great way of sharing ideas,
gaining inspiration and meeting like-minded people, but not a place for actually
implementing ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment