Who are we and how did we support this work? Making Visible Developing Process of Design, Instruction and Student Learning

Our Embedded Interactional Ethnography Team Center for Literacy & Inquiry in Networking Communities at UC, Santa Barbara

Monaliza Chian

Judith Green

Ethny Stewart

Daisy Dai

Engaging in ongoing interactional ethnographic research with our CSU East Bay LTFT Colleagues, who wanted to make visible the layers of work as it was developing

PI Stephanie Couch

Instructor and Designer, Lonny Avi Brooks

Consultant, Andrea Saveri

Project Director (initial) Azure J Stewart

Beth Yeager, Senior Researcher,

Guiding Questions Guiding Interactional Ethnographic Research With LTFT Team

How, and in what ways, did this grounded and recursive approach support Dr.

Brooks with Andrea Saveri in engaging students in developing understandings

of both organizational communication theories, and in long term and futures

thinking processes and practices in relationship to societal collapse and

organizational development?

What time frames, instructional experiences and resources were needed for

students to achieve a mastery level of both Communication theory and

practice and long term and futures thinking processes?

What constructs were central to locating evidence of student learning of both

organizational theory and long term and futures thinking?

What We Explored: Uncovering the Layers of Work of the Instructor and Design Team

Ongoing dialogues with the instructor, PI, Andrea Saveri and the project team Archived laid a foundation for analysis of the multiple layers of work undertaken to to uncover (make transparent):

• Historical, institutional and social contexts framing the instructional process

• Team members and their roles, relationships and contributions

• The resources developed to introduce students to key constructs (e.g., pace layers, forecasting, societal collapse, cone of uncertainty, among others).

• The cycles of design and development necessary to construct the Spring 2014 course

• How the learning objectives of the course were designed to meet the Institutional Learning Outcomes for Education (ILOS) of the CSU East Bay Curriculum.

What we learned from our research: Creating a (re)presentation of the

complex work of the LTFT teamInteractively Researching an Iterative

Recursive, and Dialogic Ongoing Process

Unknown context

Exploring Organiza

tional Theory

Using organiza

tion theory co

nceptsUnknown co

ntext:

Deep Past -Deep Future

Analyzing, in

terpreting, and using a co

ncept

Axes of DevelopmentInter-relating LTFT ways of thinking with Organizational Theory ways of thinking

in and across Particular Courses

LTFT Pilot Instructor & Design Team

CSUEB Organizational Communication Students

Adapted from conceptual work of Dr. Melinda Kalainoff, Academy Professor, US Miltary Academy: West Point

What counts as mastery and how is it achieved across courses, time and conceptual development -- Communication BA requirements

From Design to Action in and Across Courses

Sp 2014 Best

Course to date

Courses(3

) Fallv 2012

Winter 2013

Spring 2013

Fall 2013

Winter

2014

Elements of the Design-Spring 2014

Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Week 5

Week 6

Week 7

Week 8 Week 9

Week 10

Finals Week

Flows of Conduct

View image of pace layers and video clip of Brand explaining the meaning of the layer Reading and Simulating the Creative Fire (Ruby’s Song): role playing exercises based on the novel in most class sessions Group color selection

Read 2 Chapters of Diamond’s Collapse

Continue discussions of Creative Fire and what would each color team would want to preserve from their society (from the perspective of their color) to survive across millennia. Examine how the Long Now Foundation as an organization is dedicated to cultivating deep time thinking

Begin Sharing Presentation based on the Final Paper

Norse Society structure vs. Inuit as a case study

Role-play exercises will be done in most classes

Weekly Focus with Extended Interactional Space Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10

Date 4/3/14 4/10/14 4/17/14

4/24/14 5/1/14 5/8/14 5/15/14 5/22/14 5/29/14 6/5/14

Topic Reframing Organizatio

ns & Societies

Getting organized

Groups and

Teams

People and Organizations

Investing in Human Resources

Inter personal

and Group

Dynamics

Power, Conflict

and Coalition

Manager as

Politician

Political Arenas, Political Agents

Organizations as Cultures and Theater

Discussion Board 1 Due Date: April 16, 2014-

11:59

Journal Entries Due Date

April 30, 2014

Discussion Board 2 Due Date: May 7, 2014-

11:59

Discussion Board 3 Due Date: May 21, 2014

11:59

Looking Closely at the

Discussion between

the Professor and the Students via Online Blackboard

Mastery-K(4) Lonny Response to K(4) Developing-A(3) Lonny Response to A(3)

The collapse of the Norse was an event that had multiple factors involved, and three pace layers can be applied. To begin the pace layers that I am choosing to apply are nature, culture and infrastructure. When it comes to the infrastructure we see how the Norse (poorly) ran their villages because they were very hostile towards their neighbors and rather than building bridges with the Inuit whom they could've traded supplies and goods with, they brutally murdered them. I think this was detrimental to their demise because them coming in to a land that they were unsure how to utilize due to the different weather than what they were used to in Iceland, they could have asked or worked with the natives to learn of ways to better use the land as opposed to overusing what they had and slowly killing what little they had to work with.

Very well stated! Good work Kristela!Now, how did the Norse organize themselves and their Christian society to respond to internal and external threats? How would one of Mintzberg's structures apply here? How would Theory X or Theory Y apply here? Let me know in the next assignment. How were the Inuit innovative? See pp. 244-250 in Jared Diamond's book Collapse on PDF. See the folder on course materials Discussion Board 2 resources. Go into more detail about Norse and Inuit organizational culture. See my emailed announcement about extra credit on this assignment.

When looking back at the collapse of the Greenland Norse civilization it is hard to pin point a certain pace layer that played the biggest role in the demise of the Norse other than Mother Nature herself. Nature is a very powerful force that can destroy, revive or create life in many ways. Nature can be slow and deliberate or quick and immediate. Two of the five factors listed in Jared Diamond’s book Collapse deal directly with nature. The first of the two factors that Jared Diamond writes about is environmental degradation and the second most influential factor was climate change. These changes were both slow in their maturation but overtime played the biggest role. The role they played was changing the landscape the Norse people lived on and adjusting the amount of resources available to them.

Be more specific. What changed in nature exactly? Which trading partners? What types of fish were taboo? Now I would like you to apply a multiframe approach to this case study and provide more detail and bring in contemporary and future organizational comparisons. See my recent emailed announcement about this. How did the Norse organize themselves and their Christian society to respond to internal and external threats? How would one of Mintzberg's structures apply here? How would Theory X or Theory Y apply here? Let me know in the next assignment How were the Inuit innovative? See pp. 244-250 in Jared Diamond's book Collapse on PDF. See the folder on course materials Discussion Board 2 resources. Go into more detail about Norse and Inuit organizational culture.See my emailed announcement about extra credit present and future organizational comparisons on this assignment.

Inclusions of Key ConceptsFramework Key

ConceptsDiscussion Board 1 Discussion Board 2 Discussion Board 3

Mastery Developing Mastery Developing Mastery Developing

Bolman and Deal

Organizational

Theory

Structural 1 4 4 1

Human Resources 3 3 5 3

Political 1 1 1

Symbolic 1 2

Stewart Brand

Pace Layers

Nature 5 3 2

Culture 5 1 1 4

Governance 4 2 1 4

Infrastructure 3 4 1 1 1

Commerce

Fashion

Jared DaimondFive point Societal Collapse

Hostile neighbors 4 3 1 2

Un-friendly trading partners

1 1

Environmental damage 2 1 2 1

Climate change 2 3 1

Society’s response to environmental change

3 2 2 2 5 2

Contrastive Analysis of Two Communication BA Students

Mastery Developing Mastery

•Provides adequate evidence via APA citation

•Shows a sufficient grasp of the concepts•Demonstrates some knowledge of LTFT concepts, some aspects of pace layers and/or other ideas require more explanation.

•Demonstrates some knowledge of core course content based on the main organizational communication text for the course

•Grammar and spelling errors are minimal but enough that at times disrupts the flow of the essay

•Provides detailed evidence via APA citation•Shows a good grasp of the concepts•Demonstrates knowledge of LTFT concepts, pace layers and/or other ideas defined and explained

•Demonstrates knowledge of core course content based on the main org comm text for the course

•Grammar and spelling errors are minimal 

Preparing a Collective Mind-for-Action

Engaging informed others in formulating, examining and reformulating potential designs and actions

Thinking iteratively and recursively in the moment AND being forward looking

Going Public with students and with advisory and ethnographic partners

Instructor and design team partner(s) reformulating opportunities for developing particular concepts of Organization Communication Theory in relation to LTFT

Using a co

ncept

(known context)

Analyzing, in

terpreting,

and using a co

ncept

(unknown context)

Awareness of concept

Leading a Learning Model As an Embedded Ethnographer Creating an Iterative, Recursive and Forward Looking Process to Support a “New” Learning Initiative

Axes of D

evelopment

Constructed with the assistance of Dr. Stephanie Couch, Executive Director Institute for STEM Education, CSU East Bay

In a “start-up” the ability to collect data, explore/analyze with others, reformulate and support new directions is fundamental

Ongoing collecting of empirical records on what was happening