I planned to share some broad insights from research into listening and communication. But I discovered one study which I knew you would enjoy in depth. It explores the relationships between listening, creativity and psychological safety.
Tag: research
How to Design Better Teamwork
Research into what motivates teams
In today’s issue, we explore recent research into what motivates teams. This research can help us design better teamwork by understanding team dynamics and what motivates different people.
It got me thinking about a group or teamwork in a school or academic setting, so I have shared some guidance and thoughts about that.
An essential affirmation I had was the critical nature of the design of teams and what they do.
Together, everyone achieves more — or less?
A team at TU Dortmund University in Germany have published an interdisciplinary meta-analysis on effort gains and losses in teams.
You can access either the academic paper or a summary blog post from the researchers on Aeon.
From the beginning, the authors highlight the importance of intentional design.
Our analysis of the data shows that whether teamwork boosts motivation or saps it strongly depends on how the work is designed.
And it looks like one of the keys to boosting motivation is how we perceive our contribution. As educators, facilitators, and designers, we need to ensure each team member can make a meaningful contribution to their team’s performance.
when people perceive their contribution to the team’s outcome as indispensable, they tend to show greater effort than they would when working alone. These ‘effort gains’ can be due to team members aiming to be prosocial: they care about others and want to make a difference to the team.
You might apply dispensability in a range of ways, such as:
- What roles do people take on in a meeting?
- What do people do during a breakout in a workshop?
- What specific tasks are assigned during a discussion session in a class?
- Do people understand how their workshop contribution is integral to our collective success?
On reflection, the level of dispensability is a proxy for what we value. You would hope anything we design is worthy of the learner’s time.
Social Comparison
One of the critical factors that impact motivation for team members is social comparison.
The desire to evaluate oneself is a basic one, and when working in a team, individuals commonly compare their own performance with their teammates’ performances.
The researchers discovered this comparison could go in different directions. If a team member displays significantly superior abilities, it leads to demotivation, frustration and feelings of failure.
Team membership is most beneficial when it creates a visible, proximal, and relative advantage.
People often strive to match or exceed the performance of others, which makes working with slightly better teammates a very motivating experience…it is advisable to compose a team such that members are similar in their abilities, but with some of them being somewhat superior to boost the others’ motivation.
Some thoughts from a different direction.
I struggle identifying the ‘slightly superior’ teammate — how do we measure this?
We are also assuming we have an accurate understanding of our ability. The Dunning-Kruger effect often masks this. This cognitive bias leads us to mistakenly assess our abilities as being much higher than they are.
I am also thinking about mixed ability grouping in schools, but I need to read further into the collision of that strategy with these ideas.
Collaborative Learning
When we consider these findings in relation to schools and student learning, it is clear that collaborative learning is an essential part of the educational process.
The Evidence for Learning summary on Collaborative Learning is an excellent overview. It explains that collaborative approaches have a consistently positive effect on learning.
I noticed the emphasis on intentional design, which aligns with the research analysis from the team at TU Dortmund University. Here’s a further passage from the Evidence for Learning summary:
[Collaborative learning] requires much more than just sitting students together and asking them to work in a group; structured approaches with well-designed tasks lead to the greatest learning gains.
Some other key considerations are:
- Students need support and practice to work together; it does not happen automatically.
- Tasks need to be designed carefully so that working together is effective and efficient, otherwise some students will try to work on their own.
- Competition between groups can be used to support students in working together more effectively. However, overemphasis on competition can cause learners to focus on winning rather than succeeding in their learning.
- It is particularly important to encourage lower-achieving students to talk and articulate their thinking in collaborative tasks to ensure they benefit fully.
Your Talking Points
Here is a range of key takeaways and provocations from today’s issue:
- Design teams that create a visible, proximal, and relative advantage.
- How intentional are we in the design of our group or team activities?
- How dispensable is their contribution? Is this worthy of their time?
🕳🐇 Down the Rabbit Hole
Complement this issue with Create Safety and Togetherness #249, Willful Blindness — Medium article, If You Are The 1st Responder To New Ideas, You Have A Critical Job #243, The Three Pillars of Powerful Team Collaboration — blog, Successful Teams Are More Open About Their Mistakes — blog
4 critical thinking mental models to use when exploring research
In a few recent weekly newsletters I have been exploring some mental models for interrogating research. These mental models are a handy set of structures and ideas to apply to any research you might be exploring.
With growing access to research in education we need to be better equipped to think in a critical and creative way about what is shared. The emphasis on evidence informed decisions means there is a need for more critical thinking tools or models like I share below.
Correlation does not imply causation
The example of research that started me down this path was some of the emerging research findings into learning spaces from Melbourne University led by Dr. Wesley Imms.
In particular how they have been reported – take this quote from Dr Imms:
we’ve found a very strong correlation between innovative learning environments, high levels of deep learning and high-quality teaching.
The first mental model we might use is: ‘Correlation does not imply causation.’ This is directly related to the quote from Dr. Wesley Imms. We might safely assume his words were chosen carefully.
What does ‘Correlation does not imply causation‘ mean? Well just because we have innovative learning environments and we have observable high levels of deep learning and high quality teaching, it does not necessarily mean these positive outcomes were caused by the innovative learning environments.
Cause and effect is much harder to capture and that is why research continues.
Check out these Spurious Correlations for a more alternative explanation of this mental model.
The Hawthorne Effect
Some other related mental models we can deploy here are things like the Hawthorne Effect. This explains that sometimes the effect of an intervention is because observation (paying attention to people) alters behaviour positively. An ongoing research challenge I imagine.
Gambler’s Fallacy
Gambler’s Fallacy, also related to statistics, is the belief that future probabilities are influenced by past events. “Although this has not worked in the past I am sure it is bound to work this time around.” This is similar to the model of Path Dependency.
Randomness
One final one is the mental model of Randomness as explained by Farnam Street: “much of the world is composed of random, non-sequential, non-ordered events. We are “fooled” by random effects when we attribute causality to things that are actually outside of our control.”
Remember the idea with all of these mental models is to build up a bank that we can draw from at any time to help interrogate and explain situations we are in.
There are plenty more to use – feel free to share any other thinking tools and mental models to use when exploring research in the comments below.
I use these types of mental models all the time when I am working with leadership teams on development projects. I hope you have found these four a useful addition to your critical thinking toolkit.
#28daysofwriting
Photo by Clem Onojeghuo on Unsplash
How To Generate More Ideas With The Deliberate Debate Technique
Conflict, controversy and debate might improve your idea generation
According to research by Charlan Nemeth, and her team, a degree of conflict can increase the number of ideas we generate.
This research is fascinating as it runs counter to commonly held beliefs about the best conditions for generating ideas. These beliefs centre on withholding criticism and feedback.
In this post we explore why more criticism might lead to more ideas; when to explore this in your design process; the importance of your team relationships; practical strategies and protocols you can use to implement this approach.
Permission to Criticise
In my facilitation experience, I present the importance of not judging ideas too soon; I still think this is important. It is not a lack of critique, it is more about the timing of feedback.
Importantly this study explored the impact of providing permission to criticise and judge ideas. In this way, critique is explicitly playing a role in the process.
Here is a little detail about the studies taken from the abstract:
In this experimental study, traditional brainstorming instructions, including the advice of not criticizing, were compared with instructions encouraging people to debate—even criticize. A third condition served as a control. This study was conducted both in the United States and in France. Results show the value of both types of instruction, but, in general, debate instructions were superior to traditional brainstorming instructions. Further, these findings hold across both cultures.[1]
Nemeth, Charlan & Personnaz, Bernard & Personnaz, Marie & Goncalo, Jack. (2004). The liberating role of conflict in group creativity: A study in two countries. European Journal of Social Psychology – EUR J SOC PSYCHOL. 34. 365-374. 10.1002/ejsp.210.
I have often found that when criticism is not expected, it is counterproductive to the process. I suppose setting clear expectations such as: “critique is allowed” provides clear boundaries for everyone.
My effort to “Not judge ideas too soon” could be reframed around clear expectations, or “not judging ideas unexpectedly”. With clear boundaries, feedback and filtering are welcome and not a surprise.
Why does conflict, controversy and debate generate more ideas?
Nemeth et al describe a 25% increase in ideas generated from the debate and critique approach compared to straightforward brainstorming tasks.
Also, participants developed more ideas after the activity as those taking part in the debate mulled over potential solutions.
Even though they may have generated new ideas, I still think this task falls into the idea exploration category, the second in the three steps of creativity.
The authors posit that an environment where debate is normal creates freedom.
framing criticism in terms of its potential for group creativity would both liberate individuals to be relatively free of evaluation apprehension and stimulate them to express ideas more freely.
This connects with my understanding of self-critic and how we need to filter less when we are generating ideas. If criticism and feedback are normal we can say what we want, without fear or angst.
Nemeth et al go on to explain how this freedom improves the conditions for idea generation on two different levels.
One is at the level of permitting discourse that would otherwise be monitored. A second is at the level of stimulating additional thought via the expression of competing views. If what brainstorming attempts to achieve is quantity of ideas without regard for their quality (Osborn, 1957), the freedom to express thoughts without worrying whether they constitute a criticism of another’s ideas may be well suited to idea generation.
By opening up unmonitored discourse we encourage more criticism, as well as, more sharing of ideas. We circumvent the filters and the second-guessing that limit our contributions.
How to generate more ideas through the debate and critique approach
A couple of things spring to mind about how this research and the deliberate debate and critique approach, runs counter to commonly held beliefs.
Team Trust Improves Idea Generation
The first is about the necessary team environment for this type of approach to thrive. In a friendly team, where co-construction is high, and competition is relatively low, I would imagine it would work well.
A team with lots of shared creative experiences and plenty of successful reference points can explore higher levels of conflict with more confidence.
The levels of trust are high between the team. They can enter into the deliberate debate space trusting in the relationships around the table. Relationships are crucial to team idea generation.
We can summarise these elements as follows:
- Co-construction – we make stuff together (HIGH)
- Shared experiences – we have been through a lot together (HIGH)
- Trust – I have got your back (HIGH)
- Competition – we are not trying to beat each other (LOW)
- Successful creative reference points – we have developed ideas together before (HIGH)
When the opposite is true, criticism can often be a downward spiral of assumed personal attacks.
Mindset Matters
That leads me to my second thought about the makeup of the idea generation experience. If the critique is commonplace the disposition and mindset of participants become even more critical.
By sharing expectations, you signal that a specific type of thinking is needed. By debating ideas and testing them through dialogue, you are exploring them.
A deliberate debate and critique approach to idea generation require an emergent or exploratory thinking mindset. We explore possibilities and potential. We respond to critique and debate the options.
In the team environment, we want everyone to be on board with this approach and to tune into this disposition and expectation. Any misalignment or misinterpretation can slide into the downward spiral of assumed personal attacks.
In the next section, we look at how to set expectations for this type of work.
How to Use Protocols to Generate More Ideas With The Deliberate Debate Technique
I use protocols for thinking and critique all of the time with my clients. These are simple rules of engagement in a meeting or workshop. Protocols are the most direct way to share expectations.
Talk about the Talking
Rather than launching straight into the workshop outcomes, or the first thing on the agenda, I spend up to 10 minutes talking about how we are going to work together.
The sort of language I use to describe this phase is to talk about the talking. We establish some agreed expectations about how we will engage with the dialogue and the session’s work. The 10 minutes invariably pays off.
Hard on Content; Soft on People
For the debate and critique approach to idea generation, or Deliberate Idea Debate (DID)[2], the “Hard on content; Soft on people” protocol would be critical to any success.
A team should be debating the ideas or content, not the people who share them. The distinction needs to be facilitated watchfully.
This protocol is broken in the way we least expect. It is often because we are too soft on content, and not hard enough. You may recall times when your team didn’t quite get below the surface of the issue; identified the root cause; shied away from asking the hard questions, or were simply too nice.
The debate and critique approach to idea generation offer an invitation to change this dynamic.
“Hard on content; Soft on people” is an effective protocol to create clear expectations, which become the foundations for better debate.
Ringfenced Debate
Another useful facilitation technique is to ringfence the deliberate debate and critique time. Setup the activity to have time limits.
Time-limited activities enable the team to introduce new expectations or reinforce the protocols for collaboration.
When I am running new routines, like this debate approach, I set a limit on the time we spend in this mode. By using this approach I can make a clear distinction between workshop behaviours before and afterwards.
You might ringfence the activity like this:
- 5 minutes to establish the protocols and expectations for the activity.
- 30 minutes of debate and critique to generate more ideas.
- 10 minutes capturing insights and reflections.
- 5 minutes reflecting on the experience.
Use a timer to structure each part.
With more experience, you can extend the time for different elements of the process.
When to Generate More Ideas With The Deliberate Debate Technique?
Overall I was reflecting on:
- When would I potentially use the D.I.D (Deliberate Idea Debate) activity in a longer design process?
- When is it most helpful to slow down and explore a set of ideas through discussion and debate?
I think it would work well in the idea exploration phase, as mentioned earlier. Once you have generated a stack of ideas, the more, the merrier, the exploration and debate could help with both broadening and maturing those potential ideas.
You might start by producing the first filter, a shortlist from your collective top picks and then allow each team member the chance to present and defend a potential idea.
Your Talking Points and Next Steps
- Evaluate the idea generation methods you have used.
- Identify future opportunities to use the debate and critique approach.
- Reflect on the trust and relationships in your team.
- Outline the protocols to support this approach.
If you get a chance to use deliberate debate or dialogue, it would be great to hear how you get on.
You Should Design Learning to Privilege Experience Over Analysis
In many ways this is a pre-cursor to some future posts about empathy. Imagine it is like a supply mission ahead of the main mission.[1]
I have long been interested in shining a light on the emotional journey of learning. At the centre stands the need for greater understanding and development of empathy. This challenge is meant on many levels, including the design of learning and the overall ambition and vision a school has.
I came across this recent piece[2] about the development of policy related to climate change. The paper is an effort to put research about human psychology into action when it comes to new policy creation. The first issue it raises squarely references the need for us to pay better attention to the way we engage others:
The Human Brain Privileges Experience Over Analysis…In short, how we feel about a given situation often has a potent influence on our decisions about how to respond (Slovic & Peters, 2006)[3].
Of course the context here is slightly different, however the same psychological findings are true when we consider the design of learning. Experiential learning is one well worn path to more engaged learners. However learner design for greater empathy is typically not.
What does this actually mean for the way I design learning?
We should continue to design learning so that it can be, “translated into relatable and concrete personal experiences.” This is that well worn path I mentioned. Increasing the empathy quotient in your class is a different ask, often changing as a result of what we just discussed. Design and co-construct periods of learning that your students connect deeply with. The research tells us that we humans will filter for those personal connections and remain much more engaged once we do. We need to turn up the dial of activities that develop the skill of empathy through relatable and concrete personal experiences.
You never really know a man until you understand things from his point of view, until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.[4]
- I have been reading The Martian. ↩
- van der Linden, Sander, Edward Maibach, and Anthony Leiserowitz. “Improving Public Engagement With Climate Change Five “Best Practice” Insights From Psychological Science.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 10.6 (2015): 758–763. ↩
- The full reference from the paper: Slovic P., Peters E. (2006). Risk perception and affect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 322–325 ↩
- Lee, Harper. To Kill a Mockingbird. J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1960 ↩