E-Hoop methodology: Introduction to the Structured Democratic Dialogues (SDD) Yiannis Laouris, Senior…

e-Hoop methodology: Introduction to the Structured Democratic Dialogues

(SDD) Yiannis Laouris, Senior Scientist

Cyprus Neuroscience and Technology Institute

Collective WisdomShared understanding

Common vision

Collective intelligence

Spreadthink, Groupthink & Erroneous Priorities

Dr. John N. Warfield, the great pioneer of integrative sciences, uses the term ‘Spreadthink’ to describe the outcome of group dialogue infected with behavioral and cognitive constraints. This refers "to the demonstrated fact that when a group of individuals is working on a complex issue in a facilitated group activity, the views of the individual members of the group on the relative importance of problems and/or proposed action options will be literally 'spread all over the map.' Moreover, Warfield cautions, "Facilitators who try to bring groups to a majority view or a consensus without the aid of some methodology that resolves the difficulties caused by Spreadthink may well be driving the group to Groupthink, and thus helping to arrive at a decision that lacks individual support and, usually, lacks substance."

Groupthink, refers "to the deterioration of mental efficiency, quality of reality testing, and quality of moral judgment that results from in-group pressures. Subject to Groupthink, a group may seem to accept a specific decision; however, if individual group members are confronted with that point of view separately from the group, few members would accept that view as their own.“

The discovery of the "Erroneous Priorities Effect" (EPE) after extensive research at the Food and Drug Administration, has led to the recognition that even with good intentions for participative democracy, people cannot collectively walk the talk unless we change the paradigm for languaging and voting. Effective priorities for actions that are dependent on recognizing the influence patterns of global interdependencies, are defeated by the EPE, when priorities are chosen on the basis of aggregating individual stakeholder subjective voting that is largely blind to those interdependencies.

25 ideas each ONE voteSPREADTHINK = 100%

1-2 votes might go to others’ ideas!SPREADTHINK <100%

More votes might go to others’ ideas!SPREADTHINK <= 50%Converging means…Shared knowledgeCollective Understanding

APPLICATION STAGES OF THE RCMTM SYSTEMWhat are the Factors That Influence ……………

Contributing Factors Generated by Stakeholders

Complex Situation: Drop Out Rates

DIAGNOSIS

Classification OfContributing Factors

Root CauseMap

Steps in Each Stage of SDD Inquiry

6

Root Cause Mapping

“Suppose we are able to make progress in addressing:

(Factor - X)

will this help significantly in addressing:

(Factor - Y)

in the context of ………….?”

Generic Question:

Six Structured Dialogic Design co-laboratories

• Greece• Cyprus• Germany• Lithuania• Finland

Six Structured Dialogic Design co-laboratories cont.

• Five virtual SDDs were conducted in: Greece, Cyprus, Germany, Lithuania and Finland – Greece administered two co-laboratories - and one face-to face SDD was conducted in Cyprus. Following completion of each co-laboratory, an individual country report was produced presenting the results. The individual country reports were subsequently utilized to compare and provide unified and comprehensive results.

• All SDDP co-laboratories followed the standard validated procedure using the Cogniscope software.

Country Triggering Questions

Cyprus, Greece

What are typical obstacles that limit learners from benefiting maximally from their respective educational institutions because of their differences?

Germany How can learners be supported to generate learning content?

Lithuania What factors contribute to learning difficulties encountered by students? "What do you think are the greater challenges for special education as schools change from non-digital to digital tools and methods?

Finland What do you think are the greater challenges for special education as schools change from non-digital to digital tools and methods?

What are typical obstacles that limit learners from benefiting maximally from their respective educational institutions because of their differences?

27 Large number of students in classrooms

26 Improper and insufficient training of teachers

18 Teaching methodology

What are typical obstacles that limit learners from benefiting maximally from their respective educational institutions because of their differences?

26 Physical as well as material and technical infrastructure

25 Lack of technical and material infrastructure in schools

How can learners be supported to generate learning content?

60 Support learners technically (methodologically) in content generation process

37 Learners need to be motivated regularly

What are the learning difficulties encountered by students?

36 Economic and social situation of the family does not allow to take additional learning opportunities

6 Learning disabilities, which parents’ don't want to see, and deny tests to diagnose what are the exact problems

14 Parents are residing abroad

38 Learning resources might be innovative, but they are not adapted to the abilities of students

What do you think are the greater challenges for special education as schools change from non-digital to digital tools and methods?

2 I am curious that the digital improvement asks also skills from the teachers. There is a gap between the skills of the student and the teacher. How can we improve the skills of the teacher?

29 The challenge is to teach teachers how to work with digital tools

From SDDs to Requirements

Role of other Groups

The Lithuanian Dialogue revealed as roots:• Economic/social• Lack of diagnostic tests• Parents abroad• Learning resources adapted abilities

Testing on special populations later