Conditions that Count, Part I
Taking stock of the conditions that drive behavior.
Anti-AFK (“away from keyboard”) is hilarious to me. Look how old this video is:
It's from 2007.
And it speaks to what happens when humans need to navigate rules that don’t fit context or that seem pointless: We’ll find our shortest path to meet whatever metric has been set, especially when the metric is meaningless and arbitrary.
For example, I recently read a post by someone whose company tracks their keyboard/mouse clicking. The pandemic-induced, mass implementation of work from home conditions created a higher level of productivity (and a shorter workweek), but because of the Draconian monitoring, they set up the “fan/mouse” arrangement to avoid detection by the monitoring system.
What a waste, and another example of (a.) how we penalize high/efficient performers and (b.) how we use meaningless measures or dumb systems to control human behavior.
In higher ed, we’re seeing the same thing in the use of proctoring systems. Smarter people than I have written about the use of such systems:
So, of course, students are figuring out ways to work around the system. I don’t blame them. They’re finding the quickest way to the goal that has been set for them. The very conditions drive that behavior.
We can measure student learning in ways that don’t require the use of proctoring tools in any discipline, but the problem — from my perspective — isn’t that we can’t imagine those solutions; it’s that we can’t support them in the system under which we currently operate.
The majority of students are in class with precariously employed adjunct faculty, and the conditions for full-time faculty aren’t all that great, either. The constant push to Amazonify education coupled with the systematic defunding of higher education has rendered us operating fast and lean.
But learning and its measurement require deliberation and meat. It’s a low and slow process, the kind that renders a satisfying brisket. Running hot and fast is fine for the 1/4”-thick McDonald’s “hamburger.” It’s not fine for the kind of learning that will equip students with the thinking they’ll need to face the challenges ahead.
I don’t blame faculty for that, either.
The fact is that we’re not operating under the conditions that drive the behaviors we want. We (say we) want creativity, engagement, and productivity in the workplace. When we impose monitoring, what we get are creative solutions for working around it.
We (say we) want deep learning and the development of good thinking in higher education. When we impose the use of proctoring software, what we get are creative solutions for working around it.
We need to ask ourselves if the conditions are such that they will create and support the effects we want, for faculty, students, and the sake of learning.
I want to spend some time on what I think we need in both higher education and in leadership, in general, if we’re going to create a better, more sustainable, more just future. All systems are perfectly designed to achieve their outcomes. What conditions do we need to achieve the outcomes we want?
My ideas in part 2: The Conditions Necessary for our Collective Future.