I was reminded a few days ago of a conversation I had about four or five years ago. This wasn't the first time it happened, nor will it be the last. It comes up organically every once in a while whenever someone in earshot asks why some negative outcome is occurring in some field of the SCA.
You see, here's the thing:
We have no standards or expectations, and this sets people up to fail. It doesn't reduce barriers overall, only the initial barrier to entry while making every single other barrier harder to surmount.
As I have discussed elsewhere many times, the basic "formula" for effective learning is:
1) Set high expectations.
2) Show students you believe they can meet those expectations.
3) Tell students what to do.
4) Give actionable feedback to make "what they are doing" more closely align with "what is expected."
5) Assess and reteach as necessary.
There are a few ways to express this, but every good version will look more or less like what I have outlined above.
I am increasingly convinced that almost every problem we run into is because of our failure to apply #1, especially when we are focusing on problems at the stages of #3 and #4. We let people fail because we don't expect success, and fail they often do.
If you will indulge me, here are a few examples:
1) Fencing authorizations have little to any expectation that someone is able to perform fundamental actions well. We want them to be able to show evidence of the ability to attack and defend, but those are extremely broad in definition and do not contain any expectation of doing them in ways that show they have a skill progression to look forward to. Get 'em on the field, having fun!
What if, instead, we made good fundamentals a requirement, and then (gasp!) taught people those fundamentals and taught people how to teach those fundamentals? Would a new person be better off, even though they had a higher initial barrier to climb?
2) Our garb standards are "a reasonable attempt," which is the barest of bare minimum it comes to expectations. Yet, people will still complain this is too high. I theorize that in the absence of a clear standard, people worry about where the line is and fantasize about the dreaded (and mostly imaginary) garb snark.
What if, instead, we defined "a reasonable attempt" with an appendix that showed how to make a basic tunic and hood, and gave suggestions for pants and footwear that would meet this rule? Would a new person be better off knowing, for certain, that their "reasonable attempt" had the Society's blessing?
3) "It's a volunteer organization" as a justification for incompetence and negligence. It's one thing to not give a fully professional level of performance in a job here, and another to do a job to the detriment of the job and everyone around it.
What if, instead, we held volunteers accountable for the roles they agree to, and that accountability were fully transparent at the start? Would offices be more consistently successful?
I think the truth of the matter speaks loudly and clearly, here. There will always be some potential members who are scared off by being told what to do or that they can't do whatever they want-- but, I ask in sincerity, are those the members we want to focus on, or even retain? Disruptive or uninvested participants do not enhance anyone's experience. We should focus on giving people the tools they need to succeed, and showing them how to use those tools to find success.
No comments:
Post a Comment