Co-creative-Learning-Teams-glossary

APOLOGIES: This Page is Incomplete and Currently in Progress

Co-creative Learning Teams

What does this term mean?

We define a co-creative learning team as a group of four or five learners in which every single participant is committed to using their shared initiative and empathy in support of one another's interests and development. But could this work better than an expert teaching a classroom of students? We aim to find out. It is well known that what learners gain from teaching often differs from what was intended (see ♦ (William, ). It is also true that learning motivated by curiosity and a shared sense of purpose is likely to be more useful and memorable than studying topics with no obvious or immediate relevance to the learner.

The Team as a System

But teams are difficult to discuss because each is unique. We also need to language them in a clear and appropriate way. Systems thinking is a useful basis for thinking about them and how they work because it offers a way to discuss complex systems without fragmenting them into parts. One way to do this is by regarding the whole situation as a Black Box. You can ignore what is hidden inside the system and guess how it works from its 'inputs' and 'outputs'. By learning from this we can reinvent our own pathways and rules to improve the process.

Visualisation of a steering system as a 'black box' plus its feedback pathways

Natural ecosystems are a brilliant starting point for thinking systemically, as they have survived for billions of years without needing much energy. Once we understand how they do this we can apply similar methods to our teams. Using the Black Box analogy, we might notice that all living systems involve feedback - a term deriving from the field of Cybernetics. The name cybernetics come from the Ancient Greek word for 'oarsperson' (i.e. someone who steers a boat). If we ignore the physical mechanism of a rudder we soon realise that the basic function of steering works in all vehicles and living creatures. All are steerable, whether they have wheels, legs, wings, or fins. The same ability, therefore, can be found in teams, even if we apply the term to steering around financial or logical difficulties, rather than avoiding physical obstacles.

Self-regulation

If teams are to work effectively they must notice what they are doing and act accordingly. The concept of 'self-regulation' was an important technological building clock in developing today's world of automation. An early example is the thermostat which maintains a fairly constant temperature by 'correcting' itself. (see article about the principle). However, studying a thermostat or other types of self-regulator is very different from playing a responsible role within a self-organising system, such as a team. Whereas a mechanical system, such as a thermostat (or an AI gadget) performs according to instructions it is given, a co-creative human team has more freedom to 'think outside the box'. Hence, it would be strange to tell a Bot or thermostat that it is responsible for its actions. (But might it be reasonable to expect a generative AI device to be accountable?)

Looking where you are going

Self-regulation is not possible without some level of self-awareness. And this raises ethical issues about responsibility. When we describe a thermostat's 'self-awareness', what we mean by self refers to the device itself. When you ride a bike, YOU must take responsibility for your direction of travel. In order to avoid straying from the cycle path you must remain aware of the effects of your actions. In systems thinking terms this is part of what is called feedback. Most of the important feedback for steering your bike is visual. You see where you are going and this updates your sense of mission. If you veer to the left you may decide to correct this by turning the handle bars a bit to the right. In systems thinking terms this correction process is called negative feedback because you reverse the (left/right) 'error'. Or you might choose to exaggerate your error by consistently turning even further to the left. In systems terms we call this positive feedback because you are amplifying the current tendency. An avalanche is a good example of positive feedback. Many systems are designed to use negative feedback in order to maintain their own balance or equilibrium. The principle can apply to any self-regulating process, whether living or inanimate.

Organisational Consciousness

At this point it is useful to mention the word consciousness because an effective team will need to act at a higher level than simply acting as the eyes of a cyclist or a temperature detector inside a thermostat. Without getting into a deep philosophical discussion, suffice to say that 'consciousness' is more than 'awareness'. For our purposes it is helpful to use Marvin Minsky's definition in which he claimed that list-based computer programs (e.g. LISP) are more conscious than human beings (Minsky, 1988). This is because LISP is designed to do frequent checks on the status of all key parts of its own system. While this mechanical definition might upset some philosophers it is quite a useful starting point for thinking about the effectiveness of teams. For example, if a team relies on all of its members to contribute their individual expertise or to approve particular actions some members will get frustrated if others fail to respond, or delay replying to messages. Boredom, frustration and anger are bad for team viability. I have described Minsky's concept as organisational consciousness. While the idea of due diligence is commonly used within the professional workplace it implies some minimum standards of conduct that are expected of employees. Co-creative teams are somewhat different if we also expect them to operate without rules and boundaries set within a top-down system.
HINT: an abundance of willingness is a marvellous co-creative team asset.

Self-coordination

Of course, living organisms are much more complicated than self-regulating mechanisms such as thermostats. Where there may be many equivalents (systemically) to self-regulators within the body, they all need to work together. In effect they must somehow self-coordinate in order to maintain the viability of the whole system. Teams are even more complicated because they consist of a number of self-coordinating individuals, each one of which is highly complex and unpredictable. The word autopoiesis (literally meaning 'self-creation') describes the complex processes of self-sustainment that living organisms apply in order to maintain the conditions they need to stay alive. Of course, this is a highly simplified model, compared with what we know about particular organisms, such as the cells in the body or the amoeba that consist of a single cell. But if our current task is to design an effective team, rather than understanding biology, then we might want to know what are the essential principles of a team that can look after itself without much supervision.

Simplest Model of Living Systems?

There are 5 key elements in the above diagram. The large circle reminds us that most living systems (and many ancient cities) maintained a semi-permeable boundary between the outside world and the internal processes that help to maintain its survival. These internal processes are represented by the circulating elliptical line with arrows. This suggests a living creature's metabolism that might include, say, stomach, guts and brain. In the case of a medieval city it would probably consist of a castle, church, bakeries and houses, etc.. The external environment is represented here by the wavy lines at the bottom. These internal and external domains are connected by upward pointing arrow denoting the intake of necessary nutrients and another pointing downwards that suggests the output of waste or other products. It is important to realise that the outputs that make it an acceptable neighbour within its habitat. its sense of unity and by their identity. i.e. how they see themselves (Maturana & Varela, see pride and shame. Karl Marx's term alienation is useful here, because it identifies a lack of
apoptosis

Keeping Yourself Alive

According to Maturana & Varela a living system maintains its unity (i.e. keep themselves alive) by reconciling their internal identity with their external identity.

how Bert saw how the lion
himself saw Bert
Whereas you can 'add up' the efforts of separate individuals, teams are often synergistic in some ways and dysergistic in others. This is because the relationships have an effect on what is created.
- Ideal Team Parameters (?)
((alienation
-
- Acknowledgement (handshake)
- Playfulness
- Attentiveness (Frequency of attending - listening for) = (Minsky’s theory of consciousness)
- Luscher colour test
- Hardin’s ‘Tragedy of the Commons’
- Minimum number of organs for Living Systems
- Belbin Team Types
((Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety
((Emulsifiers
((catalysts /
- Foucault’s BWOs
- Ego management in ‘Orders’ circles
- Constellations
- Frequency of messaging
- Call and return cycles/rhythms
((Iceberg of ignorance
However, when governance in large hierarchies is top-down, the syndrome of the organisational ‘iceberg of ignorance’ (Yoshida, 1989) reduces their alertness and agility by replacing local willingness and imagination with rules and standards. This is not to claim that learning in Art Schools is always of the highest standard, but that it asks learners to make judgements that are self-reflexive, subtle, intangible, situated and procedural.
Counting (self-inclusive maths)
Dunbar numbers
Parasitic organisms (see Exploitative systems)
killing one’s host / defeat / Debate
see co-sustainment
Mutual systems
Commensal systems
symbiosis
Value only comes from combination
((Relational thinking
summative reasoning
((Profit
((Growth
((Requisite variety
((Network consciousness
((Team consciousness
((Iceberg of ignorance
((Hierarchical team consciousness
((Team roles - Belbin
((Team spontaneity
((Team latency = drag/
Organisational consciousness
consciousness
Dunbar number
optimism
POUT tool
auspicious conversations
holocracy
answer-seeking questions
outcome-seeking questions
creative quartets
four-fold reasoning
SELF
auspicious reasoning
autopoiesis
sympoiesis
conviviality
bottom-up systems
care
catalysis
choirs
Ubuntu
jeong
'No Buts' tool

Team viability =
requisite role diversity
responsiveness
team responsibility
team latency
team optimism
team catalysts
nondominium
Belbin Team Roles
requisite variety
A Team Diversity Tool
Four complementary roles for creative teams

Navigation and related functionality and content