Talking: Co-constructing knowledge

Synopsis: Diverse members of the team can contribute inputs from different angles. The group gains more insight of reality.


Clear distinctions of space and time exist in people’s minds in diversity.

Getting across

The more dimensions there are, the more the requirement for a better understanding of issues and their circumstances. Diverse members of the team can contribute inputs from different angles. The multiplicity helps the collective thinking become more rounded. The group gains more insight of reality and considers creative innovations to resolve them.

Issues and problems that create obstacles to workflow arise from different situations. They may also have different contexts and run different courses. The solutions then need to be designed to fit.


Two cognitive levels

Members verbalizing their inner speech are then vital to finding these new courses of action. Our intellectual development occurs at two cognitive levels. According to social scientist Lev Vygotsky, these are:

· Actual development: where the individual is capable of independently dealing with issues and solving related problems.
· Potential development: this constitutes the "zone of proximal development" where the individual needs assistance in dealing with challenges. The interactions with others are crucial for guidance or collaboration.

Learning continues through our lifetime in the zone of proximal development. Much of it is collaborative in nature, impossible to separate from the social context. As we gain in experience and expertise, the learning consolidates as actual cognitive development.

Learning

Learning does not occur simply with the intake of book knowledge. Vygotsky argues that all cognitive functions originate in, and are products of social interactions. By interacting freely and openly, we put the knowledge to test. In the process, we are always learners.

Consolidating learning also depends significantly on the individual's internal drive to understand and promote the learning process. With this inner drive, we develop even as we age. Without it, we tend to resist change.

Collaborative learning methods diffuse the required motivation person to person. In the process, learners develop teamwork. Individual learning and successful group learning are thus mutually related. Collaborations build up an atmosphere of mutual trust, respect and acceptance within the group. The system thus builds its own culture and values in diversity.

Co-constructing

Through the social interactions, individuals in the group can receive other people’s points of view, as well as present their own. Just talking together allows them to discover new ways of communicating their thought processes.

A close knit group, even with members of different cultures, develops a common language – like slang or verbal shorthand - that bind group experiences together. From shared learning, the cognitive structures may be utilized in new or innovative ways. People become more effective in adapting to environments and to change.

Being averse to ‘conflict’ among people of the system could inhibit creative thought or prevent its expression. To discourage talking amongst the collective is to retard processes of collective learning and problem solving. Fact is we don’t construct knowledge just by ourselves, but largely ‘co-construct’ it with others in the environment.

Comments/opinions, anyone??

References for ‘Talking’ and 'Problem solving' blogposts:

Social Constructivism
Why Vygotsky?

Talking: Focus on agenda

Synopsis: Minimizing personal contacts in organizations also minimizes lateral communications, preventing people from just talking to one another to create a common culture.



Differences, most organizations believe, will lead to conflict.

Talking

So they prefer to minimize personal contacts between members of the workforce. Keeping focused on the business agenda ensures a conflict-free work environment. It prevents time being wasted or interpersonal issues being raised. The trouble is it also minimizes lateral communications, preventing people from just talking to one another to create a common culture.

People are constantly talking around issues and solutions - in their minds. It is a conscious, purposive reflection on experience and learning. New perspectives are integrated into existing ideas, abilities and actions. This inner speech includes thinking slightly ahead of the present moment. That is, extending reasoning into the future, where outcomes will be met.

Its decisive power depends on each individual’s links with environmental factors, like other theories or other people. When people are familiar with one another these links are strong, and they are encouraged to share their thoughts and focus on issues and problems.

Culturally defined

Language and culture play a large role in our intellectual development. They actually define us, in how we tend to perceive worlds beyond our sensory data. Colour and shape that we see externally is transformed in throughput, to make sense as the things we see around us.


We assign meanings to environmental objects accordingly. For example, our eyes might see something round and black with two hands. Our minds then interpret the incoming data to mean ‘clock’.

More views

Diversity causes dimensions to multiply. Increasingly societies are becoming composed of various demographic groups. This means that the individual has to contend with more cultures, more languages, and more views than ever before.

Homogeneity among people makes communicating easy. Words, nuances and connotations are easily understood. But getting sense and meaning across those not sharing the same culture and language is harder, obviously because the words or signs that they will correctly understand need to be found.

Weak social and language skills inhibit group discussions. Cultural barriers stop people contributing their own thoughts to the group. Many in the workforce simply await instructions for task assignments.


Effective talk

Just talking outside the business agenda is an important aspect of social interactions. Heterogeneous groups get to know one another’s backgrounds, and can clarify boundaries, and express opinions, intentions and solutions. It helps in teamwork to fathom where one is coming from, or intending to get to.

Diverse people need to be just talking together to share knowledge, experiences, perspectives, and even feelings. It makes them aware of denotative and connotative words. They begin to catch on to undertones, nuances and idiomatic turns of speech.

Their interactions facilitate increasing the multicultural workgroup’s knowledge base and problem solving capability. The team members explore and present fresh angles, processes and options. The group, alerted by disagreements, can focus critical attention on the obstacles that are stalling the flow at work, or may do so in the future.

Cont’d 2…co-constructing knowledge

Jell or lose

Summary: Reality shows provide insight and learning from others’ experience.

On winner-take-all TV reality shows we glimpse the human side - the bonds and spats between individuals vying for one ultimate win.

The spice

Following Top Chef episodes won’t make us experts on exotic seasoning, or provide from the get go detailed knowledge on how to cook cordon bleu.

But as viewers we clearly understand that being a great cook isn’t all there is to getting the title.

Cameras almost everywhere 24/7 capture emotions, words and actions between fishbowl inhabitants. The more spice in interactions, the higher the viewer ratings!

Lessons

Entertainment also isn’t their sole utility. We’re provided insight, and the opportunity to learn from others’ experience.

The shows give us lessons on life. They make clear that collaborations matter in competition as do people skills for adaptability to situations.

Interaction counts

Technical skills count of course, for each competitor to complete tasks effectively – say, in cuisine. The initial rounds of the competition weed out the grossly incompetent.

But thereafter, the quality of interaction counts more than the competence or creativity of each individual contestant.

Keen memories

In the title round of Top Chef, teams of sous chefs chosen from those eliminated in earlier rounds assist the finalists.

Since these ‘others’ were once competitors, they might consider their own skills at least at par, if not better than the finalists themselves. They may also retain keen memories of earlier exchanges.

Win-lose ability

Being able to vibe with different backgrounds or age groups becomes important to win the title - or lose it.

The ultimate test is in the readiness of the winner to manage others’ performance as well. Thinking future is crucial. This, in life and work, we tend to forget.

Fish dish

The ‘top chef’ holds the overview, like a manager in any organization, and the goal (of dream cuisine). But self-absorption is weakness because if the getting across of what is to be done and how falters, it may soon hurt the enterprise.

When everything is heaped on one plate, something will slip off. The failure to include others in the thinking, planning and decision-making shows in the lack of teamwork in final execution.

For instance, for an unusual fish dish on Chef’s menu, the fish may be left behind.

The labour

Few people are born with the charisma to naturally attract a dedicated following.

The autocrat (“Silence in the kitchen!”) gets no feedback, and no fresh ideas. The poor communicator (“I had too much faith in their understanding!”) fails to share the big picture and finds the devil in the detail far too late.

Being acceptable to the group is labour for most. Micromanaging or abdicating responsibility is equally disastrous.

Showcase talents

At crunch time, whatever can go wrong does go wrong. If undercurrents seethe in the team, problem solving or creating alternatives on the fly become stressful.

Avoid the effort to jell the group, and the dream itself may be chopped to bits. Ensuring everybody else on the team also has opportunity to showcase talents motivates their working together.

The cohesiveness

Astute leadership fully utilizes available skills; recognizes who does what best, and delegates to individual strengths. The point is to channelize group energy towards the common objective - creating the best possible cuisine.

High performance needs group cohesiveness. This is built on knowledge and respect for one another’s abilities. People skills make or break career aspirations in any system. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding...and the Top title!

Comments/Opinions, Anyone??