Posts Tagged ‘mindset’
Do some descendants of our former colonial masters think that Singapore is part of China? That was the impression I got when I read this article.
A video recording crew travelled all the way here from the British isles only to discover that their footage looked like it could have been shot at home. So they decided to get a post-production house to digitally alter signs in English to Chinese.
I could also point out that the article was edited after my screen capture (compare my tweet with the article) without adding a footnote about this change, but that is not the purpose of my reflection.
My reflection is about how perceptions drive reality. If people believe something outdated and inaccurate but do not check against reality or newer information, they will continue to shape their realities to fit their beliefs.
More disconcertingly, if people want to perpetuate their mistaken beliefs, they will do so, even if presented with more current and conflicting information.
To be clear, Singapore is not in China, we have a Chinese majority but our lingua franca is English, and some of us might speak and write better English than “native” users.
My design manta has always been this: Mindsets shape expectations, expectations dictate behaviour. If we do not change mindsets, beliefs, and attitudes), we cannot hope to change actions, environments, or cultures.
I cannot change your behaviour if I do not first help you change your mind.
This is why I try to address mindsets when I have short term engagements like seminars or workshops. I try to attack the tip of the brain; the change makers I influence have to deal with the long tail of expectations and behaviours.
Every semester I provide formative feedback on written work submitted by graduate students. Before I do this, the students submit their assignments to Turnitin via an institutional LMS to determine the extent to which their work matches other work in the database.
Every semester I get at least one email from a concerned student worrying about the matching score. The worry is good in that the plagiarism talks they attend have an impact. However, the worry is bad because they misunderstand what plagiarism is and how tools like Turnitin work.
Turnitin runs on formulae and algorithms. It has a huge database of references and previously submitted work. Any new student work is compared against this content. The extent to which the new content matches with the existing work is a percentage that I call the matching score.
Some students seem to think that the matching score is the same as plagiarism. This is not necessarily the case.
If a student uses a template provided by curriculum committee or tutor, the headers and helping text will match. If another student correctly and ethically cites common quotations and lists reference, these will match with other existing work. All these means that the matching scores go up, but this does not mean the students have plagiarised.
In 2009, I provided examples on how the scores alone are not valid or reliable indications of plagiarism. A low score could hide plagiarism while a high score could actually come from the work of conscientious student with lots of correctly cited references.
Both the students and I have the benefit of not just the quantative matching scores, but also the qualitative highlights of matching texts. The latter should allay fears of plagiarism or highlight what is potential plagiarism. The student can take remedial action and I can determine if a score actually indicates plagiarism.
The problem with the system is the human element. Grading teams, administrators, librarians, advisers, and supervisors often arbitrarily set ranges of matching scores to mean no plagiarism, possible plagiarism, or definite plagiarism. The numbers are an easy shortcut because they take out human decision-making. The reports with highlighted text require reading and evaluation and thus mean a bit more work.
Both faculty and students need to be unschooled in focusing on numbers and playing only the numbers game. Life is not just about what can be quantified. Neither is the quality of a student’s assignment and their mindset on attribution.
My hunt for an elusive video brought me to the Singapore Ministry of Education’s Facebook page.
While I did not find what I was looking for, I found a series of images. They served as a helpful reminder of what teachers should stock up on to prepare for the new year.
It was also a stark reminder of the mindset and expectations of teachers. The technologies are not current. If they were, there would be reminders to change passwords, renew VPN plans, update software, check digital archives, etc.
The call to arms was: You will be needing these and more to make a lasting impact on that one student. I get that message and stand behind it because it is a call to individualise, difficult as that will be.
I hope that teachers read this as reaching out to more than just that one student because all students are that one student. However, this task is impossible with the traditional tools and methods because they are largely about centralisation, standardisation, and control.
The newer tools are about decentralisation, individualisation, and self-regulation. This will only happen if school leaders and teachers change their mindsets and expectations about which tools to focus on and how to use them.
Some people travel to experience a different culture. Ask a group of travellers what “culture” means and you will get different answers.
Culture is hard to define, but you know it when you see, feel, or otherwise experience it. The same can be said of the culture of a workplace or school.
The first thing I do when I work with a new group is ask to walk around and get a feel of the place. I do this to get a sense of the culture of the workplace and the mindset of its workers.
I have visited the headquarters (HQs) of two technology giants in Singapore several times. One giant’s name sounds like a fruit, the other sounds like a large number. Just sitting in their waiting areas provides a palpable sense of the different cultural mindsets of the organisations.
I am not talking about the decor. I am talking about how they treat their guests.
The current campus of Fruit HQ is divided into two main blocks, each with its own waiting area. You speak to a human at reception to have your identity verified and to get a name tag sticker.
I had a series of visits where I met different people from Fruit HQ. Some told me which block to go to while others did not even when I asked. I found out the hard way that the check in system and the human receptionist do not tell you if you are in the wrong block.
I always arrive early for my appointments. On one occasion I waited for a long time to be met by my contact. The receptionist decided to call the person and discovered that my contact was in the other block. I scurried over to the other building and was told that I had to check in and wait some more.
Had I not already done that? Was my contact not already waiting for me? Apparently there was protocol to follow.
At Number HQ, you self-register and get a sticker at a computer kiosk. There is more than one kiosk and people can be processed individually or in groups efficiently. There still is a human receptionist if you need one, but you see the kiosks before you spot the person in the background. Better still, there is just one meeting spot.
Another way I look for how an outfit welcomes its visitors is its guest wifi policy. The access points are easy to see on any modern mobile device. How you join them is a different matter.
I asked the receptionist at Fruit HQs how I might access guest wifi and I was told that my contact would have to request it. This meant meeting the person first, being asked to show something, saying you need wifi, the person going back to reception and making the request, processing the request… it is tiring just recalling and typing the process.
This is why I have a mifi device. Unfortunately, Fruity HQ does not have the best reception and things only get worse inside its core.
At Number HQ, you hop on their guest wifi by registering with your mobile device online like you would at a mall or public library.
The people that you meet at both HQs will generally be schooled and skilled in the art of social interaction — these are the 1%. That is not an accurate picture of the culture and mindset of the workplace — this is the 99%.
While the people on frontline are a good show, the protocols and processes are a better indicator of the culture and mindset of workers. The latter are a result of how well an organisation takes the perspectives of the people it serves and policies it puts into play.
The technology giants are very successful even though they vibe different cultures. That said, would you rather have a closed and controlled environment, or would you like a more open and expressive one? Both seem to lead to the same end, but what would you like to invest part of your working life to?
Now transfer this philosophy to schools. Then consider these questions:
- What are your school’s cultures and mindsets? What is real and what is perceived?
- If you say you are a leader or teacher in a school and do not know the vibe it gives off, how do you find out?
- If you are aware of the vibes, what would you like your stakeholders to resonate with?
Like the tech giants whose success is measured by how much money they make, the success of schools here are judged by standard exam results. However, as we swing back to values-based education, academic results fade into the background. It is the cultures in different schools that help them stand out and apart.
Would you ban people from using Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram outside of school? Why or why not?
Would you do the same in school? Again, why or why not?
If you answered no to both initial questions, you do not have a closed mindset. Continue to do good work or do not block others from doing so.
If you answered yes to both questions, there is no helping you. No amount of conversation, debate, professional development, or even an order from above will change that stance. You need to leave the system because you are doing more harm than good. You will find people who agree with you and they need to leave too.
If you answered no to the first and yes to the second initial question, ask yourself critically and reflectively why you have different answers. Why encase the school in an artificial bubble instead of connecting it to the wider world? What greater harm are you doing by attempting to protect?
This is a video that warns of the supposed dangers of social media. It has the wrong title. Instead of the danger of social media, this was about child or sexual predators.
The YouTuber did a great service by alerting parents of the dangers of inadequate parenting, the trials of growing up, or gaps in schooling. All these and more could have contributed to the 12 to 14 year-old girls agreeing to meet a strange male who was not who he claimed to be online.
But he did a disservice by perpetuating the message that the problem was social media. Child or sexual predators have and will use any tools they can, so social media is not what causes the problem. Social media does not stop the problem either.
The medium does not write the message just like a car cannot make you a considerate driver or a murderous one.
Such messages are borne of ignorance and fear. It is not too late to be informed and to be brave. Let us not blame the tools when stupid, irresponsible, or depraved people wield them.
Do the commonly labelled “new media” bring new dangers? Or are they just old dangers magnified or reinvented? Do “new dangers” actually hide something more insidious?
Put “cyber” in front of any established danger and it becomes “new”: bullying, stalking, theft, crime, and so on. I am not making light of these. I am merely saying the dangers are not that new.
They are new to traditional publishers who wish to spread fear. They are new to those who lack a critical lens with which to read what these publishers disseminate.
Such electronically-mediated crimes might be easier to commit and more difficult to detect, but that does not make them new. You might kill a person by remotely stopping his heart’s pacemaker, but that does not make it new murder.
What “new media” does require is for people to stay informed, keep up, and take action. So it might actually be fear, ignorance, or inertia that are the dangers. When not wanting to try something new, it is easier to call it “dangerous” from afar.
I know very intelligent people who make very poor assumptions or take questionable action because they choose not to know and do. The more frightening thing is that some of these people shape policy in large organizations.
New media use does not necessarily lead to new dangers. But there are many people with old mindsets fueled by old fears. I know which I am more afraid of.