Reflection on Conference Versus Unconference: Notes & Thoughts

My main reflection point is the difference in my motivations for attending, one was it was new and innovative, the other was to submit a research project and update clinical evidence based knowledge. So really they are just two separate entities, although if learning is going on then we should look at ways to enhance delivery and engagement.

Here are some of my thoughts on some of the differences:

  • Structure & Format.

The unconference was a new concept and all about the unknown, whilst the traditional conference was scientific, clinical focused and had a fully structured program. They are chalk and cheese so comparison is so reliant on personal perspective and I think they are so different but maybe there is space in the traditional format to enhance the dialogue and engagement with some open discussion sessions.

  • Preparation

For the unconference, the use of dialogue in communicating ideas was to be used. So pre-reading for myself was Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together : A pioneering approach to communicating in business and in life (1st ed.). New York: Currency. Then practicing on Trello which was used for the online discussion and resource platform.

  • Room set up: how does this impact on dialogue opportunities.

The traditional is still set up for presenting the powerpoint, with rows of seats and ‘sage on the stage’ stuck behind the lectern. It’s all too passive. Questions from the audience are minimal in this set up and often time runs out to have any discussion. The unconference used a variety of available rooms but all used the circle approach for a safe container for discussion.

  • Active & Engaged.

The passive approach versus the engaged. Time went so fast in the unconference, coffee breaks were missed and the day passed quickly. The unknown really generates excitement. Interesting presentations at the formal approach also got the crowd engaged and discussing. The majority were clinical focused and so followed the usual scientific template, and this may well be the correct way to deliver (I just dont know).

gray owl perching on brown post under blue sky during daytime

  • Who gets to talk, is it across the floor or is the “guru” the only voice?

The unconference was varied, some spoke more than others so we will look at everyone’s comments to see if others had a different experience. But discussion came from all participants. The use of storytelling around clinical experiences was a common tool in the unconference. The formal conference was all about the experts, little voice from attendees.

  • Presentation styles

In the unconference, the key trigger presentations set the background, added some ideas and then set the tone for the group discussion. It felt complimentary and then the participants went looking for issues and answers, not the expert providing their summary.

  • Online participation

The unconference offered some online aspects, with uploading of recorded key trigger presentations, active access to the Trello platform. As with most conferences the risk of unreliable wi-fi made for a cautious approach. Its also very difficult to facilitate face to face discussion, with online participants and to integrate the two. One for the future is to learn if better tools are available to meet the needs of online participants.

  • Use of social media tools

Platforms such as Slack, Trello and Twitter were part of the unconference format and so encouragement to engage was provided. Twitter analytics were followed using Symplur as well. For the traditional, individuals were using social media platforms but not much engagement came from the formal bodies.

  • Networking opportunities

No difference but the scale. The unconference is a new collaboration across disciplines so is hopefully the start of an community of practice that flourishes.

  • Learning

Learning occurred in both formats, just on different topics. I am a big believer in motivation and what makes you attend. They were both in my own time, so i had bought into both programs.

This is one persons thoughts, experiences and biases. A wider perspective is needed. In the end, they are delivering different products but it’s good to reflect and consider what learning is occurring and how best to facilitate.

 

Reflection on Conference Versus Unconference

Pre-Attendance Reflection

This week will be a very interesting experience on the educational front as I attend a 1 day unconference and after a formal 3 day clinical focused conference. Leading up to the unconference is really exciting as the day has the usual venue, rooms, an outline of the day but also has online participants. The program is also not filled with presenters, just a few ‘key trigger’ talks and then who knows where the journey goes from there. There are facilitators to guide the process but the content and direction will be driven by the participants. This is so different to anything I have ever experienced before and makes for something really new to engage in as community of healthcare educators. The formal conference has the usual structure of location, rooms, set times for presentations, sponsored sessions and also social networking events. I have a copy of the 3 day timetable and have set out my itinerary of sessions I want to attend so I feel as I know what to expect. I am motivated to attend but am not sure of my level of participation in the formal conference, likely as a receiver of information.

My observation aims during these conferences are:

  • Room set up: how does this impact on dialogue opportunities.
  • The atmosphere.
  • Who gets to talk, is it across the floor or is the “guru” the only voice?
  • Facilitation style
  • Presentation styles
  • Online participation
  • Use of social media tools
  • Networking opportunities
  • Interprofessional healthcare collaboration or traditional hierarchies
  • Feedback from participants
  • Did I learn anything?

I will add my reflections post attendance in a weeks time after the events have finished. ‘Notes and Thoughts’ will be added on topics from the conferences on a day to day basis as well.

Unconference

“An unconference is a participant-driven meeting. The term “unconference” has been applied, or self-applied, to a wide range of gatherings that try to avoid one or more aspects of a conventional conference, such as fees, sponsored presentations, and top-down organization” (Wikipedia, 2018).
The Unconference

Heutagogy: is learning where the focus is learner centred with a self-determined learning approach.

Collaborative Interdisciplinary Unconference 2018

Calling all Educators – Make a difference in ICU Education: A crowd-source organised conference aimed at developing the field of interprofessional critical care education, training, teamwork and patient-centred care with the ANZ Clinical Educators’ Network in collaboration with ANZICS, ACCCN, CICM(ANZ). Physically located in Adelaide, SA.

Follow #unconfed and Symplur conference #unconfed hashtag for social media discussion.

Resources

Budd, A., Dinkel, H., Corpas, M., Fuller, J. C., Rubinat, L., Devos, D. P., … & Sharan, M. (2015). Ten simple rules for organizing an unconference. PLoS Computational Biology, 11(1), e1003905.

Carpenter, J. P., & Linton, J. N. (2018). Educators’ perspectives on the impact of Edcamp unconference professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73, 56-69.

Nursing Education Network. (2016). Heutagogy and Nursing.

Seeber, I., De Vreede, G. J., Maier, R., & Weber, B. (2017). Beyond Brainstorming: Exploring Convergence in TeamsJournal of Management Information Systems34(4), 939-969.

 

 

 

 

Heutagogy & Nursing

What is Heutagogy?

So we have pedagogy (learning in children) and andragogy (learning in adults). The third gogy is heutagogy (Greek for ‘self‘) which is self-determined learning and places the emphasis of learning on the learner, moving away from the traditional teacher/lecturer role as the focal point. Defined by Hase and Kenyon (2000) as “the study of self-determined learning”, where in an ever-changing world of work, study and life where information is readily accessible and learning aligns with this accessibility.

Heutagogy is perfect for the online world, where the access to so many resources and personal learning networks exist (such as social media). Heutagogy is considered a ‘net-centric’ theory.

Aim of Heutagogy?

  • The development of the learner’s capability and capacity to learn.
  • Prepare learners for the complexities of today’s workplace.
  • Self-directed learning.
  • Self-determined learning.
  • Learner centric.
  • Motivated learners.

Facilitator

For the educator, an approach to creating education delivery will require a learner-centred design philosophy. Allowing the students to explore and find new learning paths is vital. For those educators who like control, this may well be very challenging to have such an open path of educational exploration. In a world of readily available information, the educator is no longer the sole proprietor of subject matter expertise. Regular discussion should allow updates on progress, understanding and if any guidance is required from the educator. A collaborative learning approach can be incorporated into the learning process to encourage teamwork. Consider introducing a learning contract to outline and agree the end expectations in such an open and trusting environment.

Double-Loop Learning

A key concept in heutagogy is that of double-loop learning and self-reflection (Argyris & Schön, 1996, as cited in Hase & Kenyon, 2000). In double-loop learning, learners consider the problem and the resulting action and outcomes, in addition to reflecting upon the problem-solving process and how it influences the learner’s own beliefs and actions. Double-loop learning occurs when learners “question and test one’s personal values and assumptions as being central to enhancing learning how to learn” (Argyris & Schön, 1978, as cited in Hase, 2009, pp. 45-46)”.

Something to consider, in schooling the Montesorri method of allowing the individual to develop and discover has been around since the early 1900’s.

Keywords: Heutagogy; lifelong learning; self-determined learning; self-directed learning; double-loop learning.

References

Anderson, T. (2010). Theories for learning with emerging technologies. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.) Emerging technologies in distance education. Edmonton: Athabasca University Press.

Blaschke, L. M. (2012) Heutagogy and Lifelong Learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-determined learning. Athabasca University.

Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2001). Moving from andragogy to heutagogy: implications for VET. Graduate College of Management Papers, 142.

Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2000). From andragogy to heutagogy. Ultibase Articles, 5(3), 1-10.

Wikipedia (2016) Heutagogy

Heutagogy: The Third Gogy

What is Heutagogy?

So we have pedagogy (learning in children) and andragogy (learning in adults). The third gogy is heutagogy (Greek for ‘self‘) which is self-determined learning and places the emphasis of learning on the learner, moving away from the traditional teacher/lecturer role as the focal point. Defined by Hase and Kenyon (2000) as “the study of self-determined learning”, where in an ever-changing world of work, study and life where information is readily accessible and learning aligns with this accessibility.

Heutagogy is perfect for the online world, where the access to so many resources and personal learning networks exist (such as social media). Heutagogy is considered a ‘net-centric’ theory.

Aim of Heutagogy?

  • The development of the learner’s capability and capacity to learn.
  • Prepare learners for the complexities of today’s workplace.
  • Self-directed learning.
  • Self-determined learning.
  • Learner centric.
  • Motivated learners.

Facilitator

For the educator, an approach to creating education delivery will require a learner-centred design philosophy. Allowing the students to explore and find new learning paths is vital. For those educators who like control, this may well be very challenging to have such an open path of educational exploration. In a world of readily available information, the educator is no longer the sole proprietor of subject matter expertise. Regular discussion should allow updates on progress, understanding and if any guidance is required from the educator. A collaborative learning approach can be incorporated into the learning process to encourage teamwork. Consider introducing a learning contract to outline and agree the end expectations in such an open and trusting environment.

Double-Loop Learning

A key concept in heutagogy is that of double-loop learning and self-reflection (Argyris & Schön, 1996, as cited in Hase & Kenyon, 2000). In double-loop learning, learners consider the problem and the resulting action and outcomes, in addition to reflecting upon the problem-solving process and how it influences the learner’s own beliefs and actions. Double-loop learning occurs when learners “question and test one’s personal values and assumptions as being central to enhancing learning how to learn” (Argyris & Schön, 1978, as cited in Hase, 2009, pp. 45-46)”.

Something to consider, in schooling the Montesorri method of allowing the individual to develop and discover has been around since the early 1900’s.

Keywords: Heutagogy; lifelong learning; self-determined learning; self-directed learning; double-loop learning.

References

Anderson, T. (2010). Theories for learning with emerging technologies. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.) Emerging technologies in distance education. Edmonton: Athabasca University Press.

Blaschke, L. M. (2012) Heutagogy and Lifelong Learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-determined learning. Athabasca University.

Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2001). Moving from andragogy to heutagogy: implications for VET. Graduate College of Management Papers, 142.

Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2000). From andragogy to heutagogy. Ultibase Articles, 5(3), 1-10.

Wikipedia (2016) Heutagogy