revisiting the "Homo Zappiens"

Part of last years project was finding out how to change education to fit with a "new student" (the "Homo Zappiens", named after his presumable capacity to learn across multiple channels).

To be honest, when the project stopped we had discussed a lot about this "new student", but I got lost in finding a "definite (and scientific) result".
The experts are still out on the phenomena (we had heated discussions on brains, switching behaviour, (dis/)ability to learn, and whether or not it was a cause or effect (or even an issue at all)

Whatever we found out then. I realize it has opened my eyes to a new reality. I am aware of a growing discord among students, and the organisations attempts (and sometimes disabilty) to change.

Last weeks I've tried take off my "educator" glasses and look through my old "entrepreneur" glasses. These glasses make me see that students are INSTRUMENTAL to reaching organisational goals (and therefore to organisational survival). Students can only be seen as partners (not as "defective raw material"; "poor souls without knowledge or skills" (I f#cking hate the "I do it for the students" argument (which implies the teacher knows better)) or "future workforce that must learn")

So what did I see? (based on virtual and f2f conversation, observation, and reflection)
- (for all dutch and intl. students) An increased voiced realization that education is letting them down (the use of #fail tags). Most tweets say something about a mismatch in expectations ("is this all there is?", or gross unilateral disrespect in student<>organisation relation ("turning up of nothing"; "being told off"; "being force fed crappy content")
- a voiced need to "do" and "build" (and learning from the doing).
- urgent needs in learning (side jobs are not so "junior" anymore, and ambition is high)
- increased competition for time (search for learning efficiency and effectivity)
- an increased ability to seperate "academic" and "professional" knowledge. "is this just interesting, or can I really use it"
- a feeling of meaninglessness


institutionalized meaninglessness, a meager harvest

What does it mean?
- We might have to tone our superiority down. For relations sake.
- We might have to look at applied education. Some knowlegde can be "interesting" yet hopelessly unusuable (and it shows...).
- We might have to rethink our portions to stay in (time) competition
- We might have to start thinking about "the experience" (our partner's as well as our own)
- We must CONSIDER our partner's "life", or lose them to competition (work, life, other forms of learning)
- this implies a redesign of the learning process and value configuration

Some stuff that might work:


Applied learning: make shit together as human beings


life syndication: show what everybody is doing (student, educators, life in general)


arrange relations (dont sever them) (Wii's in the studying area)


Do not regurgitate someone else's bullshit (Porter's for example ;-)


feel the fear and do it anyway. Most teachers do not stare their won limitations in the face (after all: I am only a student in education). Act like you demand from your students. (which might be something totally different from the content of your course). (disclosure: I needed some "persuasion" to share my shit at reboot (thanks to @elmine)


kill meaninglessness: what are you teaching? for f#ck sakes: WHY? (oh and be nice..)


Do not forget our mission. (but be humble)




be a platform for applied magic


The system is not, We are (the system). Act responsible or face eternal disgrace. (there's a fine line dividing teachers and Nazi's (We have all been students, right?)

"un-lecture" the lecture

Having been to several "unconferences" last year. I've come to appreciate the learning potential (not to mention the motivational potential) of "networked learning" (in particular discussing subjects and building things together).

At the same time, I value "traditional lectures" less and less. True there is a place for normal lectures in education but only to a limited extend and effect.
- lectures are, pretty much, one way
- they contain only explicit knowledge
- they are expensive
- and tedious for both student and lectures (save the few brilliant lecturers)
- in today's knowledge-intensive economy, it occurs that students actually have equal or better knowledge of the subject. (and it's a pity that this knowledge remains unchanged)

today I've tried dissecting some promotion campaigns and mindmapping (with mindmanager) the patterns within. It's still difficult to get the groove going.
I tried to build on the sessions I did with HZAP08

- students need some time to switch in the mindset (Me too)
- I forgot to change the seating (this influences the vibe greatly)
- allthough not as powerfull as a handwritten mindmap, it's really easy to use mindmanager projected on a screen.
- it's important to make sure that everyone uses the same conventions.
- for a lecturer is difficult not to intervene and to "lecture" but to facilitate the process.
- I works better with students with a certain experience.

I'm not sure what I got yet. I know for certain that I'm not a "lecture" lecturer, but I think I can be a facilitator of sorts.

Takeaways kick-off CoM 24-08-09

Today marked the kick-off of the new academic year of our institute CoM. The venue was the new RDM campus.

One of the founders of the RDM campus (a physically detached R&D focussed location of our university) shared his ideas and findings.

A few things that struck me:

Shifting system boundaries and cooperation
Matching business needs with education opportunities needs a systems aproach that is broader than the institute itself. RDM matches the research - design through manufacturing with both university and professional as well as vocational teaching opportunities (ranging from concepting to strength calculations to prototyping and manufacturing)

(this is a truly amazing feat in educational space/time: thinking outside the "kingdom" (and ffinf doing it for that matter))

seek knowledge intensive processes
not the stuff everybody could know the answer to. Education can truly help in the realm of expirimentation, venturing, research, and problemcrunching. We can build knowledge, confidence and we've got shit to loose (hey that's our business! :-)

the syncing paradox
business problems and education are notoriously out of sync. Curriculae are set in stone from the get go. This can mean a time-to-market of over a year for cooperation with business. RDM approaches this problem with dialogue (instead of ready made contracts) exploring the implications and adapts its planning to that of the businesses (a customer centered approach)

OIIO (Outside-In Inside out) is a schwerpunkt for Rotterdam university but also proves to be a paradox for traditional professional education ("how do we fit this into our education?" (which I think is the wrong question))

What does it mean to me?
- problems can be tackeled by looking outside the system boundaries. I hadnt though of this big a system.
- the syncing problem can and should be adressed
- there is a demand for knowledge intensive processes which can be be adressed now at a moment at which business, student, teacher and institute can benefit. It's a golden opportunity.

#hzap08 standing order #3: baby, dont fear the reaper.

Change is inhibited by the barriers we construct ourselves. As we try different things we receive feedback from the system we live in. Sometimes the feedback is positive, sometimes it's negative.

- people might tell us stuff is impossible
- doing the wrong stuff might get you fired or disgraced
- failing might get you fired or disgraced
- people might frown on your erratic behaviour
- people might not agree iwth your plans

but most of all: YOU might not agree with people or the system.

it's actually our fear of ridicule that's causes you to stop your "good fight" (not the negative feedback or the friction)

We need to demolish these barriers by accepting your fear, accepting that it's necessary to continue, and go forward anyway.

During the project I felt a lot of fear. The external fear of disgrace, but more important the fear in failing in something, I've come to realize, which means a lot to me.

Fighting for something that means a lot and failing is better than failing even before the first blow. The realization of this is paramount for learning and change.

#hzap08 standing order #2 be the change

It's easy to spot what is wrong. It's harder to build a vision of what it has to become. It's even harder to take the first steps yourself.

I hear a lot of people complaining or expressing their frustration with the status quo. Some of them write plans for a better future. But usually these plans incorporate other people "doing things better" or "making the bad things disappear".

That's not realistic.
Don't think. Act!

Realize what your own sphere of influence is. (it's usually bigger than you think), and act.


(illustration by Ton Zijlstra)

Whatever your path. It takes blood, sweat and tears but people will join you and become inspired by your actions. Be grateful for every step forward. Once you start going forward, dont ever stop, or it will destroy you and make you "normal".

#hzap08 standing order #1 Gung Ho!

I was reading John Robb's standing orders for fighting an "open insurgency", and decided to write my own standing orders for learning (and getting things done (the object of learning) in a networked world.

If ever I find myself in the same spot I found myself in last year I hope I will remember my "standing orders" :-)

standing order #1 Gung Ho!

I'm gonna have to be carefull not to kick in any open doors here. But I feel the spirit of Gung Ho! (chinese for work together) is essential for networked learning. Without "Gung Ho spirit" learning will become mechanistic.

I'll try to nuance it: There are many ways of working together. Mostly everything works fine, until the shit hits the fan. Clashing norms, orientation, dislike, outside pressure, attrition. (normally everything that's associated with the "storming" phase of group process). There are several ways to deal with it. But IMO they all boil down to two archetypes:

- Command and control: In which the teamleader resolves the situation (For example T.E. Lawrence executing the vendetta-murderer in his camp, to stop vendetta)
- Group process: the group resolves differences (or put them aside for the time being). (For example the resolve of the soldiers in Henry V's army at Agincourt, fighting against the odds, but being fully aware of not standing and working together will lead to disaster)

The first example is the most commonly used way in modern businesses. The result being the team members being dependend of the team leader for steering, and feedback (even amongst each other). I think this model is an example of the industrial age.

The second is much more difficult to attain. Examples include "esprit de corps", Auftragstaktik, Loose-Tight control, management by objectives, etc.

There are many tasks and responsebilties for the teamleader (I'll admit with 20/20 hindsight there are things that I could have done differently). But I'll start next time expecting "gung ho!" which means:

- understanding the (overall) task at hand.
- seeing your part.
- actively seeking synergy.
- putting differences aside or resolving them within the team.
- live with your own conduct.
- staying on and chipping in when the shit hits the fan (especially when the shit hits the fan).

It's everybody's responsebility (but especially that of the team leader) to maintain "gung ho"

#hzap08 my story so far.

It's been a few weeks since our closing conference. There are many things to write about. I've decided to write about what I think I've learned about putting things into action on a larger scale.

I'm afraid it's going to be a bit philosophical. But I'll try to close on a tangible note.

Oh Krishna, drive my chariot between the two armies. I want to see who desire to fight with me. With whom will this battle be fought?

are the first words of Arjuna in the Bhagavat Gita. A story that had great impact on how I think about work. It has helped me greatly to fathom the essence of my work, my struggle with friend and foe, how I feel about quality, and how to stand for my own values (and not compromise like I did many times before)

When I started this project my vision was clear: "we, the intrepid, innovative, righteous and brave educators would work together to show the "normal" people how we could use new technologies and insights to improve education" (OK I'll be honest: "and... we (I) would be heralded as the heroes we were, be wined and dined and have our faces on the cover of "profielen" and maybe Time"

Like Arjuna I surveyed the battle and felt despair as it progressed. I reached the deep end when:
- I presented my vision in front of my collegues, and met stiff resistance from the people I considered allies. Like Arjuna these people were former teachers, friends (no family luckily :-)
- I was chastised by my team, for being too "loose" in my command, while the other part chastised me for nagging.
- the attrition in my team reached horrible levels. Some people had to go (a nasty thing, that nobody likes) Some people went by themselves.
- my superiors pressed for tangible results (we invested about 270k)

To be honest, at this time I was really tempted to quit, or compromise the underlying values that had me started on this track.
But I realised I also made me covet victory more. I started having negative thoughts about the people I worked with and the org. that gave me the mission. It didnt fit my perception any more.

Death means the attainment of heaven; victory means the enjoyment of the earth. Therefore rise up Arjuna, and resolve to fight! Having made yourself alike in pain and pleasure, profit and loss, victory and defeat, engage in this great battle and you will be freed from sin.

Krishna (disguised as his charioteer) tells Arjuna, how this coveting clouds the mind, and makes a person waver in the face of duty.
The notion of defeat, disgrace, or crossing swords with the people I respect, made me waver. How could I ever do the right thing?

You have the right to work but never to the fruits of work. You should never engage in action for the sake of reward, nor should you long for inaction

The second part is easy. I tried it, it's possible, it sucks. But I could only let the first one by accepting that my pain was caused by my desire to "have my face on the cover of "Profielen"". It was ugly to look at, and I put it away.

What remained was the feeling that I was still working on a noble cause. That the adversity was a noble enemy, and that it's OK to fight a respected enemy (and it was OK that they fought me, like a good enemy should). I also made me value the forces that were with me.

- Our remaining team with all our differences and fears
- the forces in the organisation that were superior to me. Even when I didnt understand them or their motives.
- the support from within the org. other services.
- the forces outside the org. that affirmed my viewpoints.

He who shirks action does not attain freedom; no one can gain perfection by abstaining from work. Indeed there is no-one who rests even for an instant; every creature is driven to action by his own nature.

every creature is drive to action by it's own nature. This is what I've come to believe in. Not by someone elses nature. (mine for instance. Or the org. Or the other teammembers).

What the outstanding person does. Others will try to do. The standards such people create will be followed by the whole world.

That means being outstanding (in whatever you believe outstanding). But much more important: allow others to be outstanding, and fullfill their destiny.

Thus, we fought the last weeks. I feel we dropped the silly bickering, and gave it one last push. It culminated in our day on the 4th of june when we showed the world what we'd been doing. Not everyone understood, but I feel we pushed the envelope. And I can hear the world slowely moving because of our actions.

Credit where credit due. In the midst of stress, and difficult questions. The team held. They came across with whatever they stood for, and whatever they had. Which was more that I bargained for.

So what do I learn from this?
- There is an innate force that brings people to action. Tapping into this is much more powerful than any management construct.
- Resistance to change (wherever this appears), is a sign of a worthy cause.
- Duality (classifing into moral good or evil) as nothing to do with the fight. both sides are fulfilling their own destiny. Everyone should fullfill theirs and not the ones of others. Despairing in or focussing on the wrongness of others is unbecoming a professional.

(I feel this last one is a real trap for educators. I've seen everyone try it (including myself), and it all ended in tears)

- I believe that knowing this, you are ready to join the good fight.

what it means is:
in order to be able to work together:
- the individuals must be aware of their driving force.
- be able to value the world (including the bad stuff) for what it is.
- be able to transcend duality and their own desires.
- it is possible to find common ground in action, but it cannot be forced by man. (maybe by nature..)