Summer Travel 2016 – Hong Kong, The Philippines, and Thailand

Well. So much for getting the blog up and running. Nevertheless, since I still have one, this seems like a good place to review what I did over the summer. I have pictures, too, but the phone I used to take them is dead and doesn't want to recharge at the moment. When I get it fixed, I will update the post.

It’s been a few weeks since my trip to the South Pacific ended, and I’m finally starting to feel like I am readjusting back to the US. It has been a great trip, and I’m very thankful for everyone who contributed to the trip, either by donating time, resources, or just moral and spiritual support. God has done wonderful things for both me and those I’ve been working with this summer, and I wanted to share what went on with everyone.

Phase 1 – Arrival and Arrival

My initial trip to Hong Kong in May was rather short – only a few days – before I continued on to the Philippines with Linda Smyth. Linda was nice enough to host me for the entire summer, and it was great getting to travel with her in the Philippines at the start of my trip. Upon arrival in the Philippines, we met Cody and Marie, who escorted us to Pastor Randy’s church in Arwas. Cody and Marie had scheduled an Insight Seminar at the church, and we arrived several days early to prepare. 

Once we got to the church, I led a short review/discussion session with Cody, Marie, Randy, and Linda. The session lasted for two days, and gave everyone a chance to refresh their familiarity with the seminar material, as well as discuss new insights into the ideas and theories underlying the program’s teaching and activities. Everyone had something to add to the discussion, but Cody, in particular, contributed a lot to the discussion, with many interesting and helpful ideas and insights that will help us develop better programs for future seminars. 

After the introduction session, the delegates began to arrive for the main program. We had around a dozen Christian leaders in attendance. Many were from the local area, but several traveled many hours to attend the seminar. Almost all of them were active pastors who were interested in learning how to better teach and minister to their churches and communities. They were an intelligent and excited bunch, and it was a pleasure to meet and interact with them throughout the seminar. Cody led the Insight training, and Marie focused on the IBS (Inductive Bible Study) program. (Cody and Marie ran both programs during the seminar, at the participants’ request). Unfortunately, I can’t say too much about the discussions that took place during the seminar itself, as the entire program was conducted in Tagalog (and, occasionally, local dialects), which I am unfamiliar with. My discussions with Cody and the participants, however, helped me see how they were learning and developing their understanding and relationships. 

In the Insight Seminars, we focus on these two main interrelated points. In order to build strong, positive relationships with God, ourselves, other people (Christians and otherwise), and our environment, we need to have the best understanding possible of the parties involved. Thus, the seminar focuses first on how we can gain understanding and discernment, and applies these ideas to the development of various relationships in the participants’ lives. Our immediate focus in on understanding ourselves (what Leonard, our Mozambican director, calls our “first environment”). If we don’t understand and relate well to ourselves, we are hindered in every other relationship, because every other relationship we have depends, in some way, on us. Controlling ourselves and taking responsibility for our actions is the first step in building strong, lasting relationships with others.

Of course, focusing purely on the self is detrimental, since life consists of far more than just “me.” During the seminar, Cody led discussions on our relationship with God, with the Church, and with others in our community. There was a lot of enthusiasm for the ideas being presented in the seminar, and more than one participant commented later that, until they attended the seminar, they had not thought about their work in terms of relationships, but more in terms of actions and procedures. They were delighted to learn how they could further develop their ministries through communicating an understanding of what a good relationship (with God or men) really means. 

As the program came to a close, everyone expressed satisfaction with their experience. The participants praised God and celebrated a better understanding of Him and His creation, and our presenters were blessed to not only help others learn, but to learn from their participants. Many of the discussions during the week were truly group discussions, with Cody and Marie facilitating, but not dominating, the conversation. I think, all in all, everyone left with new lessons and ideas. It was a fantastic trip, and I want to thank Cody and Marie for organizing the seminar, and Pastor Randy for hosting everyone.

Phase 2 – Hong Kong

When we got back to Hong Kong, I was asked to help Linda’s son, Scott, present a seminar for his church in Fairview Park. Scott had previously attended a seminar Al and I put on in the Philippines, and had worked with Al and I on subsequent training projects in Hong Kong since then. I met with Scott both before the seminar, and we had weekly reviews of the progress of the program during the 10-week seminar. Since Scott would be presenting the material each Sunday afternoon, Sunday became an extremely busy day for him. In order to give himself some breathing room, he asked me to cover preaching at his church while I was around so he could focus on the seminar training. The best way to learn is to teach, but “best” rarely equals “easiest.” I was happy to pick up the preaching to give Scott a chance to focus on the training. 

 The sessions went well. Attendance started very strong, which is good, but did fall off towards the end. This is expected in long-running free programs. The seminars are often taxing and can be frustrating, as learning new ways to look at ideas can be quite stressful. We often experience fatigue after several weeks of programs, which is one reason we prefer shorter intensive programs with long-term follow-up. Fortunately, Scott is well placed to provide such follow-up, and I have confidence he will continue to work with his church members to help them develop both individually and as a body. The participants themselves expressed interest in the material, though some expressed a desire to see more immediate application of some of our concepts. This kind of feedback is helpful, as it allows us to see where the seminars are strong or need a change in focus. Often details like this will vary from culture to culture, as different people require different approaches or points of emphasis. 

Both my sermons and the seminars were recorded, and can be viewed on the Fairview Park Christian Church’s YouTube channel [insert link to YouTube channel].

In addition to working with Scott, I was also able to meet with some local church leaders to talk about using the seminars as part of leadership training/discipling programs. These discussions are very preliminary, but the people we talked with were interested in finding new ways to help their church members understand more about themselves and God, and I am hopeful that we will be able to continue our discussions in the future.

Phase 3 – Thailand

Finally, I spent a week in Thailand attending a graduate course as part of my PhD program. For those who aren’t familiar with U.S. PhD programs, there are usually about two years of classes before work on the PhD dissertation/research starts in earnest. I chose this course in part because of the tuition discount – in general, the discount on tuition was equal to or greater than the cost of travel, making it both an economical choice, as well as a great opportunity to work more closely with students from non-western cultures. The differences in perspectives and history, as well as the students’ willingness to share their experiences and ideas made the course entirely worth the trip. 

The class investigated the characteristics of various cultural value systems: guilt/innocence, shame/honor, purity/impurity, etc. These cultural values have a significant impact on how different people view and understand the world, and understanding them helps tremendously in seeing how intercultural communication – including communication of the Gospel – must be conducted carefully and with deliberation. This is not to say that all communications must be slow, only that we must always pay attention to both what we are saying, and what the people we communicate with are understanding. Of course, this is true in any communication, and the more you know about the people you are talking to, the better you can communicate.

Insight Into: Education & Conceptualization Part 4

In my last article, I talked about the potential conflict between traditional educational techniques and conceptual development. For those who want the TL/DR version:

1. Traditional education focuses on imparting information and eliminating error
2. Conceptual education focuses on developing ways of processing information and utilizing them effectively through constant re-examination.
1. Part of this re-examination requires brainstorming ideas and new perspectives
2. These ideas and perspectives will almost certainly include errors
3. Self-identification and correction of these errors are part of the conceptual development process

The key term in part three is "self-". To develop good thinking skills, the learner must be able to work through errors on their own. This makes the actual acquisition of correct data much slower than the traditional process wherein the student is corrected by a knowledgeable source. In fact, it is possible for a student to never properly identify certain errors, leading to long-term misconceptions. It is the risk inherent in thinking for yourself.

Clearly, both forms of education are important. Both having access to correct information and the ability to process, analyze, and innovate said information are both critical to long-term development. Unfortunately, the techniques which effectively impart correct information (and include external correction) create thinking habits that can be counter to good conceptual thinking and development - in particular, dependence on external correction and the tendency to "learn for the test" instead of understanding the content of the material.

I think that this can be addressed in a number of ways. In all cases, it is important to remember that understanding is more than mere knowledge and thus, the conceptual development is necessary for genuine educational development. Thus, we need a combination of methods - on one had, disseminating valuable information accurately and, on the other hand, providing the mental tools to understand and build on that information. I think there are a number of ways we can do this. Keep in mind that the list below is a simple overview, and not intended to be exhaustive, either as a description of the methods, nor as a complete list of possible methods. These are just ideas for discussion.

Method 1: Include conceptual development exercises in traditional education

This method involves taking the currently existing classes and curriculum and introducing exercises designed to force students to interact with the information in ways outside of those they have already been taught. This may include brainstorming new ideas or connections to ideas, as well as proposing various ways the information may be used in unusual circumstances.

Strengths:

• Minimum amount of change to overall educational structures (i.e. no new classes needed)
• Can be added to existing material
• No new teachers needed

Weaknesses:

• Teachers will experience some loss of control over the material as students innovate
• Some teachers may need to be retrained to work with these new approaches
• This will extend the time it takes to cover any particular subject
• Some students may not learn the information or be able to think conceptually as easily as others - there is a danger of students being left behind the rest of the class

Method 2: Student-directed learning

This method gives students much more control over their material, allowing them to learn at their own pace. These methods have been effective in several private schools.

Strengths:

• Self-directed teaching means that all students are able to learn at their own pace, ensuring maximum understanding for each student
• Teachers have less to work on in terms of material, as the students are actively involved in determining what they learn and how

Weaknesses:

• Teachers lose a substantial amount of control over the material
• Self-directed curriculum usually includes material to guide the development, such material can act create the same "learn for the test" behavior that is found in more traditional education
• The role of teachers can change dramatically - from "teaching" to "supervising"
• There is a substantial change in the structure of the educational institution at this point

Method 3: Dual-track curriculum

In this method, the regular classes progress as normal, but an additional "interdisciplinary" course is added that focuses on integrating the ideas from the other courses and prompting students to think about the whole of their education in new and creative ways.

Strengths:

• Existing classes would experience minimal changes, with the exception of having more cognitively engaged students
• The separate course not only serves as a way to promote conceptual thinking, but also helps integrate and provide relevance for many of the other classes the student takes
• One teacher can specialize in conceptual development, leaving other teachers to their specialties

Weaknesses:

• This requires changing the overall structure of the school's classes, as well as the addition of new teachers for the new classes
• Existing teachers will need to make some adjustments, in order to keep discouraging students at the kind of creative thinking the new class encourages them to do
• There is a real danger that the existing courses could be viewed by some as supplementary to the new conceptual course, especially from the perspective of the students (for whom the interdisciplinary, conceptual course provides relevance for some of the other courses' topics).

-----------------------------------------------

Conclusion:

While I have my preferences in methods (which I may get into at another time), the point here is not so much finding a solution as it is understanding that solutions are available. What is not optional, in my opinion, is to sacrifice conceptual/analytical understanding for the sake of imparting more and more data. It is also important to note that it is surprisingly easy to undermine conceptual development, as the "Common Core" curriculum in the U.S. has demonstrated. In my investigation of Common Core, I have found the principles it is intended to promote to be very positive, with a strong emphasis on conceptual development. Unfortunately, the application of the curriculum has, from all accounts I am hearing, resulted in less critical and conceptual thinking by its students. I think this is, in part, because the application of the curriculum is at odds with the intent and perhaps even the content of the curriculum. Unfortunately, this issue is bigger than my article here has time for, but suffice to say I think there is a solution, if we are willing to change not just the content of our material, but the style we use to teach. Thinking is a action, and actions are guided by habits. We need to instill not just the idea of conceptual thinking, but the habit in our students.

Insight Into: Education & Conceptualization Part 3

In the last article, I provided a brief discussion of why simply acquiring data is insufficient for education. A student must be able to understand the data you are communicating. I noted that this requires a style of thinking that focuses on concepts and ideas instead of rote memorization. This type of thinking, however, is a learned skill, not a natural talent.

In IRI's work with developing communities, we have determined that teaching someone how to think conceptually requires at least the following learning cycle:

1. Introduce ideas
2. Prompt the learner to think about (analyze) the data provided in 1
3. Encourage the learner to synthesize concepts (their own take on the data) based on their understanding and perception
4. Prompt the learner to analyze the new concepts
1. Prompt the learner to compare the concepts to the other ideas they have
2. Promote learner-driven identification of inconsistencies and errors in the ideas
3. Do not correct the learner - the self-identification of errors is critical
5. Encourage the learner to synthesize concepts based on their analysis
6. Repeat as necessary (many, many, many times) to develop the habit of reflection, analysis, synthesis, and self-correction

This is a gross oversimplification of the system, but it is sufficient to point out one of the key points of conflict between teaching people how to think (promoting analysis and understanding), and simply teaching them what to think (providing data). The crux of the difficulty lies in point 4.3 - emphasizing self-correction over instructional correction.

As I mentioned in the first article of this series, the goal of education is, in part, to make sure the learner has correct information. To that end, error is the enemy, and must be corrected so that the student doesn't learn bad information. Yet in order to think in a way that promotes understanding, students must be able to think through issues without correction, and, from a traditional educational perspective, this is unnerving. The tendency of a teacher to correct error is, in many cases, nearly automatic. Thus, a tension arises between the need to impart correct data, and the need to train students in ways of processing that data. It can be extremely hard, in a classroom context, to find a way to balance the two. In some disciplines (often literature or philosophy), the emphasis gets placed on developing understanding, but many times lacks a sense that some things may be correct or incorrect. Other disciplines (medicine, the previously mentioned nuclear power plant management) take a very dim view of errors, as these can cost lives. Yet all disciplines need both elements of education to flourish, because without both, you can't have students who understand new information. Without that balance, you either get students who can play with ideas, yet divorce them from operations in reality (pure analysis), or you get students who are locked into calcified systems of understanding that they can't innovate on (pure data).* To truly be effective, education must include both of these elements, yet they seem mutually exclusive (good thinking = tolerating error, good data = eliminating error).

Next article, I will look into some ways to, perhaps, reconcile these two systems so that students can both be good thinkers, and learn good information.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

*I am comparing extremes here for emphasis. Most people have some degree of both elements in their thinking, though these elements may still be imbalanced. That said, I have personally met examples of both extremes, so I can say with confidence that they really do exist. This is a real thing.

Insight Into: Education & Conceptualization Part 2

In my last article, I proposed that one of the main reasons for education is to keep people from doing "stupid things." If you have not read the article, please have a look to get up to speed. Today, I want to continue looking at how conceptualization impacts education. Let's get back to the discussion.

The Core Issue Part 2:

So it turns out that simply transferring data to a student does not, in fact, mean the student understands the data. In fact, students often only focus on remembering enough data to pass the tests, as, in the educational context, it is the tests that really matter (more on that in a later article). Now to understand why this is an important distinction, consider two warehouse employees, Jake and Janet.
Jake and Janet both work for Dr. Rebar* organizing items in a warehouse. In the back of the warehouse, there is a door. Dr. Rebar has repeatedly told both Jake and Janet that they should never open the door. Being good employees, Jake and Janet both listen to Dr. Rebar, and avoid opening the door, even when it seems convenient to do so, which is really quite often. After a while, Janet starts to wonder why the door needs to stay shut, even though there are many times during the day where life would be easier if they just used the door. Jake tells her that it isn't important why Dr. Rebar wants the door shut, the doctor is the boss, and if the boss says don't open the door, then you don't open the door. Janet, however, is unsatisfied with this. One day, she asks Dr. Rebar why you don't open the door. The doctor explains that the door is quite heavy, and, at some point, the hinges broke. If you open the door, the door will actually fall out of the frame, and a lot of extra effort will be needed to put the door back. In short, until the door is fixed, opening the door is more trouble than it's worth. This sounds reasonable to Janet, and she goes about her business.
Now, at this point, you have two employees, each of which are doing what they're instructed, and preforming their jobs as they should. Both know that the door should not be opened, but while Jake has just accepted this as a basic fact, Janet understands why the door should not be opened. From a performance perspective, there is no difference between the two, and, for the most part, Janet's understanding seems superfluous.
Then, one day, a fire breaks out in the warehouse, and Jake and Janet get stuck in the back of the warehouse. The only way out is the door, or a skylight, which can only be reached by a dangerous climb up to the top of the warehouse (a climb that might just end with the climber dropping two stories into a rapidly-spreading fire). Jake, not wanting to open the door-that-should-not-be-opened, opts to try the incredibly risky climb. Janet, on the other hand, realizes that, in the face of a fire, a broken door is a minor inconvenience, and simply opens the back door and leaves. Janet makes it out and, because this story is supposed to have a moral, Jake slips and falls and dies a terrible fally-fiery death.
So the point? Just acquiring data is fine, as long as all you need is that data. Unfortunately, when problems arise, they are almost always the result of something unexpected happening, which requires some creative thinking to resolve. This creative thinking, however, is impossible for someone who is simply acting based on their instruction, instead of acting based on their understanding of the ideas (concepts) the instruction is trying to convey.
Does this seem obvious? Yet we see variations of "I just couldn't figure out [fill in the blank with an incredibly simple issue]" as a reason for why someone failed at something all the time. At IRI, we have learned that one of the main reasons for this is not that people don't have the necessary data to solve the problem, but that they aren't thinking in a way that allows them to conceptualize the problem and identify solutions. In IRI parlance, their cognitive system is centered around concrete data (B), not concepts and analysis (A). It turns out that conceptualization is a learned skill, and must be taught as vigorously as any other type of educational information. The difference is, with conceptual thinking, you aren't talking about teaching data. You're talking about teaching people how to process data - that is, how to think." In our next article, I'll look at the necessary steps for teaching conceptualization, and examine how this intersects with (and conflicts with) our traditional style of education.

Next Week: Teaching People How to Think

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*I am going to assume Dr. Rebar has a degree that is consistent with a PhD graduate who gets a job as a warehouse manager. I imagine it is a degree in something like interpretative dance.

Insight Into: Education & Conceptualization

This begins a series on the difficulties with deliberate development of conceptual thinking in education. My goal is to 1) identify key issues in education and educational systems as they relate to developing conceptual thinking, 2) identify patterns in current educational processes that hinder conceptual thinking, and 3) propose solutions to improve conceptual thinking.

Before I begin, I think it is important to establish how I use certain terms, so here's a short list (I may expand on this later):

• Ideas: our thoughts about things
• Concepts: ideas we hold, where holding an idea connotes ownership and the ability to adapt said idea based on new information
• Definitions: ideas communicated to us via a 2nd person or medium
• Information/Data: ideas we receive through perception or formulate through analysis
• Conceptualization: The process of identifying, reviewing, analyzing, organizing, and generally thinking about concepts
• A, B, C aspects of thinking: refer to previous articles (link provided below)

To begin:

The Core Issue Part 1 (Education)

As I understand it, there is one primary area of conflict in education that tends to drive a wedge between teaching people "how to think" (that is, how to conceptualize and respond to ideas) and teaching "what to think" (i.e. teaching people specific instructional data they need to follow). This conflict stems from one of the primary reasons for education: to make sure people don't do stupid things, where "stupid things" include spending unnecessary effort to relearn ideas humanity has already investigated. 

For example, we have spent decades developing computer technology and programming and it would be incredibly wasteful to make anyone who wanted to work on computers have to figure out basic circuits and logic systems on their own, when we can simply impart known information to them. This way, they can add to the current body of understanding based on our previous research. In addition, we are absolutely sure we want to educate people who manage nuclear reactors on how to manage nuclear reactors - it has proven very bad when those people misunderstood their jobs, or got something wrong.

The need to impart existing information has two central areas of focus: to transfer said data to the student, and to make sure the student accurately understands this data. In short, we are interested in accurate transfer of data. This means, among other things, that error is one of our primary enemies. Let's face it - you don't want errors showing up in nuclear power management, or surgery, or waste disposal. That's really bad. Thus, we structure our education around transfer and accuracy, testing students to make sure they have acquired the data we give them as we intend them to receive it. If they pass the tests, all is well, and we can assume they understand the information.

Except that last sentence has proven to be wrong. Passing tests, it turns out, does not guarantee understanding of an idea. This is because understanding requires conceptualization. That is, the data we provide (in the form of definitions) must be converted into concepts. (I discussed this previously in my articles on direct and indirect understanding; see the link below to the relevant articles). This means that students, to successfully understand the information we are giving them, must be able to conceptualize the information they receive (i.e. transform them into concepts). This is where we run into our core issue, and to understand that issue we need to investigate what we need to do to teach people to conceptualize.

Next time: The Core Issue (Part 2: Conceptualization)

Link to articles on ABC thinking: http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-review-of-reviewing-thinking.html