In recent months, Dave Goldberg has been doing some exciting work in Colombia with UniAndes. In order to better reach their colleagues, Chapter 4 of A Whole New Engineer has been translated into Spanish. If you would like to access and share this translated chapter, you can do so here: http://ciie.utn.edu.ar/libro/
“The last time I personally looked for a job was some 29 years ago when in 1990 I applied to a dozen universities for a tenured faculty position in engineering…I recall this history, because that 1990 search was of a different era. A few of the applications were sent by email, but many of them were submitted through the Post Office (!!?) as printed documents, and it was largely a person-to-person old-fashioned kind of search that was common decades ago. Thus, it was with some trepidation last week that I volunteered to work with a close relative (call her Andrea) to help her find a job in the age of online applications (Monster, Indeed, ZipRecruiter, etc.).”
Explore the 21st century job search landscape in a new blog post by Dave Goldberg here.
“A shift is a small change to something we already do well that gives great power to effect change in ourselves and/or others.
And in this definition lies the blessing and the curse of shifts. Shifts are changes to things we already do reasonably well. For example, our ability to listen can be shifted to give us much greater power in conversation, but when you ask someone to consider making a change to how they listen, it can be difficult to even get their attention. “Oh yes, listening,” they’ll say, “I’m already a great listener,” and the person turns off to the very idea that there is something to learn here.”
Learn more about the first key Shift in a new blog post by Dave Goldberg here.
“Some of the earliest learning of the iFoundry adventure led to a key insight of what’s missing in education today. Other insights have come from coaching, training, and consulting interactions. All were combinations of theory and practical insight. Here we use the term shift to denote a small change to something we believe we already do quite well. ”
Discover the 5 + 1 shifts in a new blog post by Dave Goldberg, here.
“Expert this and expert that. If you listen to modern advertising copy and the media (and to university professors) the most important thing in the world is to become an expert, but something funny happened on the way to the expertise forum…”
Delve into the modern world of expertise in a new blog post by Dave Goldberg here.
- Coaching is not what you think: It is not advice giving by a smarty pants know-it-all.
- Coaching is remarkably cost-effective and webinar attendees can attend free monthly group coaching sessions.
- Coaching is a form of humble inquiryin which the coach asks powerful questions and the client reflects deeply on possibilities, values, goals, and desirable results.
- Learn the four ways coaching can help you in your work.
The movement to transform education in line with the imperatives of the 21st century is a global phenomenon in which worldwide technological and economic forces collide with national culture and local institutions and customs. In this show, host Dave Goldberg gets two views from Canada. In particular, Dave interviews H. J. (Tom) Thompson, President of Olds College, to understand how to future proof higher education, and STEM game change Gina Cherkowski to understand and enhance the pipeline of students who are technologically literate and competent. Join Tom, Gina, and Dave for a lively discussion about how educational change takes place, with special emphasis on the ways in which such change lands in a Canadian context.
Learn more about Big Beacon Radio, here.
I put up a post on LinkedIn the other day (here) in which I talked about the Three Speeds of Educational Transformation, and in that post I labeled the three speeds as follows:n:
- Speed 1: The NO Track
- Speed 2: The SLOW Track
- Speed 3: The GO Track
The NO track is, arguably, the most important track of educational transformation, but it is also the most difficult, and the one where most misspent effort is directed. Tenure and other institutional artifacts make contrary faculty members better boo-birds than team members, yet many change efforts spend a lot of time trying to change the minds of those dead set against the effort. Change leaders will array “evidence-based” methods, persuasion, shame, and then coercion against those on the NO track, to little or no avail. All this is natural enough given shared governance and the widely shared notion that all faculty must “buy in” to all innovations. In this way, academic decision procedures are a NIMBY problem (“transformation is great; just don’t change my course.”), and logrolling (“you vote against innovation in your course, and I’ll vote against it in yours”) results in nothing much changing. Making this work: The best approach to NO-track faculty is to simply go around them (with their blessing and ultimate approval), and have them witness genuine student engagement as frequently as possible. We think of NO-track faculty as hard headed and hearted, but my experience is that when they witness genuine student engagement, they soften and change their hearts, then their minds.
The people on the SLOW track are those who want to make transformative change and “buy in” to the conventional wisdom of change (e.g., active learning, PBL, experiential learning, flipped classrooms, etc.). These people are “expert” in change, , and the are likely to resist calls for more extreme measures–to emotion and culture change or to trust and courage leading to deep unleashing experiences (see Chapter 5 of A Whole New Engineer), for example–as much as the NO track resists the idea of any change. This resistance to the ultimate aims of transformation must be skillfully managed. Making this work: Those with an appetite for conventional change are important because they are ready to act, and once they establish micro-cultures of change, these pockets of reform become a locus for both future go-track membership and capture of the old culture with new sets of artifacts, beliefs, and assumptions.
The GO track is for those working who are ready and able to move as quickly as possible to the boundaries of what is possible in educational transformation, but ironically transformation is made more difficult because the process itself misleads practitioners into believing it is easy. The 4 steps to the slow or no track for go-trackers is a s follows:
- Confidence. A content-matter expert is successful in a narrow academic discipline.
- Underestimation. The expert judges educational change to be easier than mastering his/her discipline.
- Shallow reflection & study. The expert grabs at-hand examples–usually conventional and incremental examples–and starts to execution without deep reflection or study of best practices by others.
- Poor execution. To make matters worse, the expert executes individually, poorly, using methods aligned with ordinary class routine.
The result is a fairly shallow, poorly diffused, and unsustainable change effort. Thus, a key difficulty in transformative change is unleashing go-trackers and preventing overconfident NO- or SLOW-trackers from hijacking the ultimate aims of the transformation effort. Making this work: Several things help get the GO track moving at top speed. First, carefully assess the individuals and organizational units involved in transformative change to understand both their aspirations and readiness for transformation Ontological assessment helps do this by listening to units and individuals in units along key dimensions of change (What is education? What is change?). Then, put align individuals with there ability to move ahead, NO, SLOW, or GO. Finally, train GO and advanced SLOW trackers in the methods of personal and organizational change (using a ThreeJoy training (here) courses along the lines of Facilitating Change that Sticks here) and then unleash them to work with willing students in a number of little bets with the goal of obtaining a sequence of small wins.
Thinking and acting in this way will accelerate the conversion of NO to SLOW to GO tracks and boost both the speed of transformation and the chances of its continuing and sustainable success.
David E. Goldberg is president of ThreeJoy, the founder of the non-profit Big Beacon, and also a noted computer scientist, entrepreneur, civil engineer and professor emeritus at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. He resigned his tenured professorship in 2010 to work full time for the transformation of engineering education. He can be reached at email@example.com.
Goldberg published A Whole New Engineer: The Coming Revolution in Engineering Education earlier this year (with co-author Mark Somerville and writer Catherine Whitney). The book is available from ThreeJoy Associates and in hardcover and all major e-book formats.
The book, A Whole New Engineer: The Coming Revolution in Engineering Education is available for pre-order on Amazon or for bulk orders at 800CEOread.com.
For more information about the book write to Dave Goldberg (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Why are professional women
still hitting a glass ceiling?
Lately I keep finding myself in conversations about how a surprising number of women aren’t moving confidently into leadership within their careers. I’ve heard some worries from my executive coaching clients, but often the topic has come up at social or business events.
For me it’s a puzzle: why is it that so many terrific professional women are still struggling with issues we thought we’d be able to put to rest back in the 80s and 90s?
This doesn’t seem to be just an us-against-them, women-versus-men thing. I’ve heard insightful men express concern that too few women are reaching their full professional potential. For example, two male professors recently asked me why their star female students seem to have lower job aspirations than their less qualified male classmates?
And in recent months, both at formal industry conferences and in casual chats, some of the most accomplished American women journalists have been talking about how leading newsrooms still seem to be dominated by a male culture. This seems to be the case, in both print and digital realms, despite the fact university journalism programs often have more women than men students.
Also, disturbingly, young women in several career discussions this spring told me they feel more threatened than supported by women who are senior to them in their organizational hierarchies. They look to men and generational peers, they said, want they want mentoring.
Part of the problem may relate back to those of us who were among the early women to enter many professions. I was the first woman in Ohio University’s MBA program in the 1970s. And later I joined the first big wave of women who went to Georgetown Law School, and then on to Washington law firms. It was wonderful and exciting, but sometimes it was frightening as well. And the experience left scars.
Even where there was no hazing or explicit double standard, it could be exhausting and bewildering to join male teams where we weren’t really wanted. As a result, despite years of achievement, some “old girls” still experience surprising lapses in confidence. It can show up in little ways, such as: Read more