Abstract:
As part of my role, I often coach testers through the early
part of their career. In this context I have noted a pattern in the application
and interpretation of models. They are generated internally through various
stimuli (learning, influence of others, organizational culture) and then
applied subconsciously for the most part, until there is sufficient external
scrutiny to recognize them. To this end, I have created a model of questions to
help testers to elevate their internal models to a conscious level and begin to
articulate them.
To this end I hope to articulate at MEWT:
- Presentation of the model of questions to determine internal models in use, without introducing models explicitly.
- Use of Blooms Taxonomy to visualize a coachees modelling paradigm and the steps towards modelling consciously.
- Practical examples of using this model to assist early career consulting testers to cope with new client information saturation.
____________________
The first speaker at Mewt was Ash Winter who talked about
his experience of coaching and how coaches have their own internal models which
still could be wrong. Ash talked about
the issue he and other coaches have experienced with using models and the risk
that they can limit your thinking. He
had noticed that some coaches talk about models without really recognizing that
they are using a particular model. This appears
to be especially true in the testing domain.
Ash presented a different coaching model based on Blooms taxonom to provide a framework of asking questions of those you are coaching rather
than providing answers. Ash stated that
we should, as coaches, “Build your model on pillars of questions, not
answers. You are coaching”
The levels of Blooms taxonomy can be seen here:
An in-depth look at Blooms taxonomy can be found here.
Ash displayed a different variant of this during his talk:
Ash stated that he felt that Blooms was good for learning
and it was useful for coaching as well.
Since Blooms works on the basis that you work towards goals this also then
applies to those who coach and utilize coaching models.
Ash also stated that his model for coaches is for those who
are experienced as coaches and who are involved in coaching those who are early
in their career as a tester. As with any
other model Ash did point out that he felt this was a new coaching model which
was still evolving and emergent and wanted input for the wider community?
During the discussion after Ash has spoken I highlighted
that the Blooms taxonomy approach does have some flaws especially in a digital
driven learning environment in which we are now situated.
The hierarchical approach of Blooms does not
encourage deep and meaningful learning aided by digital media.
The problem with taxonomies is their attempt to pin down the complexity of cognition in a list of simple categories. In practice, learning doesn’t fall into these neat divisions. It’s a much more complex and messier set of cognitive processes.http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.com/2006/09/bloom-goes-boom.html
Issues with Bloom taxonomy further reading:
- https://eppicinc.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/sugrue_bloom_critique_perfxprs.pdf
- http://www.corwin.com/upm-data/13602_Chapter_1_Marzano_Final_Pdf_2.pdf
- http://www.learningspy.co.uk/myths/challenging-blooms-taxonomy/
There are alternative learning models which appear to
overcome these flaws in Blooms and maybe mixing them together will provide a
more robust model for Ash to work with.
For example:
“Heutagogy is the study of self-determined learning … It is also an attempt to challenge some ideas about teaching and learning that still prevail in teacher centred learning and the need for, as Bill Ford (1997) eloquently puts it ‘knowledge sharing’ rather than ‘knowledge hoarding’. In this respect heutagogy looks to the future in which knowing how to learn will be a fundamental skill given the pace of innovation and the changing structure of communities and workplaces.” https://heutagogycop.wordpress.com/history-of-heutagogy/
Or
“Connectivism is driven by the understanding that decisions are based on rapidly altering foundations. New information is continually being acquired. The ability to draw distinctions between important and unimportant information is vital. The ability to recognize when new information alters the landscape based on decisions made yesterday is also critical.” http://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm
At the end of the talk by Ash the group felt they
needed to go away and think more about the ideas Ash has discussed.
To finish I will leave you with a quote from Ash during the
talk:
A lot of people do not know what models are sometimes
they emerge during applied practice
