OK to recap on why I’m doing this. I am interested in developing ideas about the sustainability OF education. In session 1 we were introduced to the definitions and concepts around sustainability – from an ecological and societal perspective. We were asked to think of some challenges relating to our interests:
- My case for transformation is that: educational institutions create knowledge and resources that are largely unshared.
- I could think of a second case for transformation: knowledge generated is not built-upon and is therefore re-invented.
One comment on my post pointed me to the work of Joss Wynn at Lincoln, and I’m familiar with their student as co-producer work there, and am a big fan of that. Joss’s work helps me see a bigger picture beyond my inward thinking about the processes and practices within education. There is a wealth of work at the LNCD at Lincoln including the project Joss writes about – Chemistry.FM where resources are openly licensed and distributed to support chemistry learning for forensic sciences. Joss’s blog is thought provoking and I need to read more:
The main message about sustainability that I tried to push across in the presentation is that for OER and Open Education in general to be sustainable, we need sustainable societies and a sustainable planet. These are, arguably, not sustainable in their current form, so how can Open Education both contribute to sustainability in general and therefore become sustainable in itself as a paradigm of education? (Joss Wynn 2010)
Quite right. But we have to start somewhere. I think the small things can also matter. So on with Session 2 of CSF101 which is about systems, and I might find connections between the small things and the wider context that Joss is exploring.
- What are the connections between tools, practices, processes and wider education?
- What can influence what?
Learning from body systems!
I’ve just realised that as a physiologist, I should have a pretty good idea of how systems work, and I can’t believe I haven’t made that connection before. The course says there are 8 body systems – there aren’t. There are 11 (so a bit more complicated).
MIND CURLERS. Can you guess them?
Digestive (the greatest)
Homeostatic principles and feedback allow each of these systems to interplay, and if an imbalance is created (poor nutrition, lack of exercise, ill health), that is when things go out of kilter. The most remarkable display of the interrelation of the human body was being with my dad at the end of his life. The body systems were failing like dominos in a line. The urinary system was in close connection with the circulatory, and as the kidneys failed, the blood pressure declined, and so it continued until the blood pressure was no more. The miracle of life was unwinding before my eyes over a period of hours.
Extrapolating the body to the world
To achieve sustainability, and to design sustainable systems, I would think we need efficient component parts communicating by efficient feedback systems. We need to avoid ‘unintended’ consequences. Of course, the world is more complicated, and we are talking about very different systems interacting – economic, social, ecological, biological.
In the video Peter Senge talks about business systems and the need to avoid problems. What does it take? Learning. Being prepared to learn and admit you are wrong. The main difference between this and our body’s homeostasis, is that our sequence of receptors and control systems, are compliant, take the evidence on board and act accordingly. “A deep and persistent approach to learning”. Also you need to triangulate “different people with different points of view to collectively see”, and these processes may take time. Different from the body here, where the physiological reaction will generally be very fast and efficient. The solutions to the problems, seem pretty well mapped out and rehearsed in the body, unlike elsewhere.
I like the comments that our societies and schools are very much focused on the individual – the smart kid in the class. “The smartness we need is collective”. I do disagree that businesses are there to solve problems – we do very little to learn from what went well, and when our existing economic, ecological or whatever system works fantastically, I don’t think we do take enough opportunities to consider that.
If I think about the beauty of the open education community as it exists and grows – the collective values and collective intelligence within it, is absolutely part of the success. Yes, there are individuals and maverick and rebells within the system, but ultimately they communicate back to the world through blogs and social media, and form part of the unit.
The importance of a shared goal.
The human body works together to keep us alive. The goal is clear. To be sustainable, we all need to define what our goals are.
We are asked in the course now to consider the UN conference on sustainable development 2012 Rio +. Six targets for 2030 were considered:
- Thriving lives and livelihood (including education)
- Sustainable food security
- Sustainable water security
- Universal clean energy
- Healthy, productive, biodiverse ecosystems
- Governance for sustainable society
(From Nature article by David Griggs, Montash University Victoria Au).
The framework has 5 parts:
Such a framework has to be a useful starting point, but some of the problems that might arise come back to terminology – security seems an odd word. There will be clashes of priority – it is OK being virtuous in the West about pollution and farming methods, but this might be life and livelihood for others. Key to this is the redistribution of wealth I would think.
Also this seems a very ‘corporate’ and traditional framework, which we have proven over the years that is not a very effective approach otherwise we wouldn’t be considering the problems we have surely? I’m surprised there isn’t some more innovative and creative thinking around what business and performance management approaches we should be considering?
A am therefore not going to use this framework and do the challenge – but focus on the targets. These need fully understanding before any strategy can be put into place. I know from managing enough people and running appraisals, the moment you throw SMART objectives at some people and define their objectives for the coming year, they are turned right off. About 50% of people I’d say. So framework away if you must, but we need space for big hairy innovative thinking.