What is Education?- A thread on learning and teaching, the creative process, practice

[MikeF]

So, what type of a metaphysical model should PME develop over the next, say, 20 years?

Marc, let me take a step back before we jump into that question. I want to consolidate some of your thoughts along with Selil and WM using the example of Mrs. Liles (I hope that she doesn't mind us bragging on her a bit.) Then, I want to elaborate on some of the ideas suggested by Steve the Planner, John T, BB, and Steve Blair. If I can put all this together, we may find how to do this and not have to ask the question of what should we be doing.

My professorial spousal accessory unit is one of scariest intellectuals a person might meet. Her bachelors degree is in anthropology. She has, a masters in history (women's anti-slavery movement), a masters in computer science (software systems component engineering), soon to have a PhD in technology (computer forensics implications of science and technology), and will likely be getting her Jurist Doctorate.

Some of the most brilliant minds that I've met and studied are generalists with exposure to a broad range of study. I've often wondered if the forced specialization in social sciences is hampering our learning, creativity, and progress. Same thing holds in branches. I've served in some elite armor and infantry units and worked with some great SF guys. But, sometimes, the same thinking and mentality that made us great in some wars (i.e. tanks during the Thunder Runs) hampered our ability to think critically in others (um, death before dismount).

School districts (corporations where we live) don't like us. She prepared an extensive literature review on twinning and education policy nationwide. She then got the leading experts on ISTEM (Indiana science, technology, engineering and math) who work for the Governor to evaluate the local teaching strategies. We make teachers nuts but our children test higher than their peers (2 to 3 grade levels). It is not talent, or genetics (unless the milkman was a mensan).

Welcome to the world of wicked problems. Almost any social reform is a wicked problem, and they quickly get political as stakeholders cling to the status quo processes, emotions and egos spark and clash, and money is involved. Tell her to drive on with the understanding sometimes just putting together the facts is not good enough. One has to learn how to mobilize, recruit, advertise, and influence. Wow, that's sounding very familiar. Oh yeah, it's phase one of Mao's guide to social revolution. Please don't make it an armed rebellion and start flying planes into public education offices .

The strategy of education in our house is that the world is our school house.

Well done. Your children will thank you one day.

When looking at professional military education I don't see the flexibility I would like but then again the product is supposed to be specific. I don't think the military wants to see a bunch of fully self actualized dream heads walking around talking about the meaning of existence. The military as an organization wants the smartest life takers and heart breakers they can find or create. Then they argue about the definitions of heart breakers and life takers.

emphasis mine, MikeF

Sam, I disagree with the last two sentences. IMO, that's our problem, and it leads us to 1. Rush to failure. We forget the 5 P's (Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance), and we don't do proper planning, reconnaissance, and intel-gathering to define the problem sets that we hope to change. 2. Leads to micro-management. For instance, we have a problem with too many civilians getting killed in A'stan. Solution- Place restrictions on the ground commander. That's a weak solution. There are better ways which I'm going to attempt to explain in my next article.

Ok, so the next step is discussing collaboration, aka "The Huddle," as a process of discovery, learning, and a pathway to better ideas. It's also very Socratic and akin to King Author's Round Table discussions.

Thoughts?

v/r

Mike

[marct]

Hi Mike,

Just some initial thoughts before I get in to more detail in my next post....

Marc, let me take a step back before we jump into that question. I want to consolidate some of your thoughts along with Selil and WM using the example of Mrs. Liles (I hope that she doesn't mind us bragging on her a bit.) Then, I want to elaborate on some of the ideas suggested by Steve the Planner, John T, BB, and Steve Blair. If I can put all this together, we may find how to do this and not have to ask the question of what should we be doing.

Mike, if the purpose of stepping back a bit is to reflect on the stuff already in play, I certainly have no problems with it. As I mentioned early, the "M" word tends to send people into a tizzy, as do the "E" (Epistemology) and "O" (Ontology) words . I raised it for a couple of reasons that, I believe, are actually quite pertinent.

First, you are absolutely correct about the 5 P's. The problem, though, is that to plan effectively, you have to know where you want to end up at a certain point in time, how much you are willing to spend to get there and how to get there; you need a map. Strangely enough, that gets you right smack into philosophy. What we consider to be the basic units of analysis, our nouns and verbs or map symbols if you want a cartographic analogy, are defined by our ontologies. These, in turn, are tested in the real world by how effective they are at achieving certain ends, and our test protocols are our epistemology. Underlying both of these is our basic assumptions about how "reality", where we live and operate, is constructed, and that is our metaphysics.

I'm not saying that we should dwell on it, just that we need to a) be aware of it, and b) think about the effects (2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th order) of what we propose, as well as the current, socio-cultural limitations on metaphysical assumptions.

Some of the most brilliant minds that I've met and studied are generalists with exposure to a broad range of study. I've often wondered if the forced specialization in social sciences is hampering our learning, creativity, and progress.

I've always thought that it did, especially after watching how some colleagues reacted when I started talking about "taboo" knowledge areas - like neuro-biology. And, while I have a definite preference for generalists - Renaissance (Wo)Men - it is absolutely critical that we have "specialists", otherwise we generalists wouldn't have anything to generalize about !

[IMG]file:///C:/Users/Marc/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.png[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/Users/Marc/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-2.png[/IMG]

Ok, so the next step is discussing collaboration, aka "The Huddle," as a process of discovery, learning, and a pathway to better ideas. It's also very Socratic and akin to King Author's Round Table discussions.

Well, outside of the fact that I'm sitting at my dining room table on my laptop with a glass of Merlot instead of a beer, isn't that what we are doing ? (Slightly) more seriously, what would you suggest? Personally, I would all be in favour of a week-long group get-together / retreat (preferably in the Caribbean!), but I doubt that we could get funding for it.

Cheers,

Marc

[MikeF]

Hi pup,

Thank you for your comments. I can tell you that no piece of paper can ever define the wisdom that a GOOD sergeant major brings to the table.

Well, outside of the fact that I'm sitting at my dining room table on my laptop with a glass of Merlot instead of a beer, isn't that what we are doing ? (Slightly) more seriously, what would you suggest? Personally, I would all be in favour of a week-long group get-together / retreat (preferably in the Caribbean!), but I doubt that we could get funding for it.

Yes, Marc. We do it here everyday. What I'm trying to write about is how to expand that impact. Something Steve the Planner suggested has been bouncing through my head this week,

How do we make one plus one greater than two?

More on Monday. Off to the beach to watch my brother preach and attend my niece's bday party.

Mike

[MikeF]

GEN Mattis weighs in at the CNAS conference on Officer Development,

“I believe the single primary deficiency among senior U.S. officers today is the lack of opportunity for reflective thought,” he said. “We need disciplined and unregimented thinking officers who think critically when the chips are down and the veneer of civilization is rubbed off -- seeing the world for what it is, comfortable with uncertainty and life’s inherent contradictions and able to reconcile war’s grim realities with human aspirations.”

[William F. Owen]

Gen Mattis

“I believe the single primary deficiency among senior U.S. officers today is the lack of opportunity for reflective thought,”

Sorry, but it's not the lack of opportunity, but the out right lack of effective thinking, even given the opportunity! Look at the garbage pumped out by those who have ample opportunity.

“We need disciplined and unregimented thinking officers who think critically when the chips are down and the veneer of civilization is rubbed off -- seeing the world for what it is, comfortable with uncertainty and life’s inherent contradictions and able to reconcile war’s grim realities with human aspirations.”

Again, I submit it's actually more effective to have done the thinking, before the "chips are down." Comfort with uncertainty comes from confidence. You can walk in the Valley of Death because you "fear no evil."
I fully agree that the problem comes from a lack of discipline. There simply is none in the thinking that informs most military debate. -

In fact, in some limited way, this forum represents some of the most rigourous thinking on the subject - yet no one here would be widely recognised as one of the "leading military thinkers."

[Ken White]

Cessation of micromanagement by the incumbents, removal of the 'up or out' fallacy, ceasing to use personnel policies residual from WW I only suitable for mass Armies and more reasoned competition for promotion would provide more than ample opportunity for thought -- and for creative thought as well. All that is easily within the grasp of said incumbent senior US Officers.

Dumbing down training after Viet Nam had a terrible cost...

An Armed Force has to operate on trust. Deliberately undertrain and undereducate subordinates to keep them ignorant and compliant while 'saving money' and one will not be able to trust them out of one's sight. That will have predictable consequences on where one must place one's priorities and will cost more in the long term.

[MikeF]

I'll be honest I think this is actually possible. A combatant commander J3 had his adjutant approach me for possibly briefing them in person in theater.

I've had similar things happen, although more along the lines of "can I take you out for a beer and pick your brains...".

That's outstanding. Ten years from now, I think some of the ideas we're discussing on collaboration will be standardized and become routine processes. We're already seeing this in the private and to some degree the public sectors- just watch an IBM commercial where the teacher has his students interact with children in China via webcam.. It's just a matter of how long are we going to wait to take care of this comparative advantage that we possess with our intellectual capital.. GEN Patraeus used it at TRADOC to write FM 3-24 and in Iraq with his counsel of colonels.

In fact, in some limited way, this forum represents some of the most rigourous thinking on the subject - yet no one here would be widely recognised as one of the "leading military thinkers."

Wilf, I think you underestimate the amount of indirect influence SWJ has. Dave Dillege and Bill Nagle started a grassroots organization with an amazing idea- a website that has peer-reviewed "living" documents and a rigorous open-debate forum that allows for discussion based off the merit of one's arguments rather than rank/status. Are some "heavy-hitters" afraid to publish here and have their ideas challenged? Of course, but that does not take away from the fact that many reporters come here to write stories, many students come here to learn, and many practicisioners come here to explain. Additionally, the freedom of this site allows for social networking, and it allows academics and other writers to test ideas before they go to print. I think, over time, you'll see more books recognize SWJ in their acknowledgement pages.

v/r

Mike

[marct]

Hi Mike,

That's outstanding. Ten years from now, I think some of the ideas we're discussing on collaboration will be standardized and become routine processes. We're already seeing this in the private and to some degree the public sectors- just watch an IBM commercial where the teacher has his students interact with children in China via webcam.. It's just a matter of how long are we going to wait to take care of this comparative advantage that we possess with our intellectual capital.. GEN Patraeus used it at TRADOC to write FM 3-24 and in Iraq with his counsel of colonels.

It's a touch more complex that that . Some of it is systemic as in the organizing principle of the system. Current PME and a lot of Higher Ed uses an Authority Ranking system as its base structural (relational) model, while what we are dealing with here is more of a reciprocity system. If you want an analogy from civilian life, it's the difference when you are looking for a job between just submitting a resume to a company (mail or online doesn't matter) and networking so that the job description and keywords are actually written with you in mind.

These structural, or relational if you prefer, systems are all based around the concept of distribution rather than around production. They have other characteristics that are tricky as well. For example, "trust" and "reputation" are the cornerstones of the system, unlike the current systems where position or office are the cornerstone. In reciprocity systems, you trust individuals; in Authority Ranking system, you trust offices and organizations; at least in our current ones.

Wilf, I think you underestimate the amount of indirect influence SWJ has. Dave Dillege and Bill Nagle started a grassroots organization with an amazing idea- a website that has peer-reviewed "living" documents and a rigorous open-debate forum that allows for discussion based off the merit of one's arguments rather than rank/status. Are some "heavy-hitters" afraid to publish here and have their ideas challenged? Of course, but that does not take away from the fact that many reporters come here to write stories, many students come here to learn, and many practicisioners come here to explain. Additionally, the freedom of this site allows for social networking, and it allows academics and other writers to test ideas before they go to print. I think, over time, you'll see more books recognize SWJ in their acknowledgement pages.

Totally agree with this assessment, Mike.

Cheers,

Marc

[William F. Owen]

Wilf, I think you underestimate the amount of indirect influence SWJ has. Dave Dillege and Bill Nagle started a grassroots organization with an amazing idea- a website that has peer-reviewed "living" documents and a rigorous open-debate forum that allows for discussion based off the merit of one's arguments rather than rank/status. Are some "heavy-hitters" afraid to publish here and have their ideas challenged?

I have profound respect for what the Dave and Bill have done, and I certainly do not underestimate the visibility of ideas here - but the good thinking and effective contributors to SWJ are not the lauded "COIN experts."

[Ski]

As much as I believe General Mattis is on the right track, I also believe the current personnel system cannot produce many officers, much less Generals, who have those traits.

If the personnel system, including the 20 year retirement mark, can be successfully reformed so one is not constrained by "key developmental" tours, "three R" tours and time specific command time, then perhaps more of the leaders General Mattis wants can emerge from the system.

We're products of the system, which has consistently focused on producing subject matter experts within a very narrow field (branch/functional area). The general education of an officer should begin well before commissioning. I've said here in the past that history should be a mandatory minor for all Army officers because you need to understand the past in order to understand why the present looks the way it does. When people do not understand the past, you get situations such as "well, the Baathists are gone, Saddam is hiding, now what the hell do we do..."

In fact, critical thinking must be done well before the committment of forces..some dudes named Clausewitz and Sun Tzu had some sort of writings on these subjects...understand the nature of the war you are about to embark on, know yourself and your enemy and you'll be victorious in a thousand battles.

The Army trains people very well, it does not educate people very well, nor does it really foster a spirit of intellectualism except in very select groups. This must change if Mattis' goal is ever to be reached (and I believe it's a worthy vision).

[Ken White]

The Army trains people very well, it does not educate people very well, nor does it really foster a spirit of intellectualism except in very select groups. This must change if Mattis' goal is ever to be reached (and I believe it's a worthy vision).

Only 'acceptably well' IMO -- and marginally acceptably at that. The fact that most in the Army are better trained than system design is a compliment to good leaders who transcend that system.

Aside from historical fact, I can look at a picture of action in Afghanistan or elsewhere today and see poor training evidenced. See the attached example of bunching, firing without aiming, firing on full auto for no reason (both those by an apparent Leader...), carrying MG ammo loose allowing belts to pick up debris and misalign cartridges in the links. No one take pictures of Command or Staff errors indicative of poor training but they abound also and few who return that I've talked to fail to have some sad -- and some hilarious -- stories illustrating that shortfall...

Other than that, I agree with your excellent post.

[selil]

You know if the Army or Marines would pay. I'd follow a cadre out of bootcamp through their first deployments and chronicle in an anthropological educational system the process and systemic issues. My co-pi Dr. Tyrell and I would travel and train as internal observers using our own gray beard coterie to evaluate our concerns.

Then the group would meet at some Caribbean resort (all paid for by the military sponsors. To discuss the results.