I am currently at a course with forecasters from around Africa. We have been exploring how people use data (and particularly satellite data) in their forecasting. During one session I asked people what process or route they follow when they forecast.
The response looked like:
>Understand what the client needs / what they are sensitive to
--> apply a local understanding of the meteorology
----> look at the current data (observations and NWP ) and develop a story about the current weather
------> look at the forecast NWP and generate a forecast
On the top of the image you may be able to see words that look like analysis and forecasting, above the word current weather story.
At the start of the discussion we made a difference between analysis and forecasting. As the conversation continued the participants made much less of a distinction. The story being dynamic representing what the atmosphere is doing now, how it got that way and where it might be going.
This concept of story has been very useful during the course, some of our stories are familiar and have familiar names (monsoon, mascarine high, ITCZ/ITD) and are also known as conceptual models. The stories have helped participants start to identify what to look for in different sources of data (in particular satellite data).
I notice how much enagement is generated by the particpants and instructors when people talk using "weather as story" over, for example, talking about what can be seen with a particular channel from Meteosat/MSG.
Mark, this is a great observation about forecasting and a cool training strategy. What I hear from you is, we may sometimes over-analyze our tasks to the point where they no longer feel authentic. Of course, breaking down tasks into their core competencies is valuable for trainers to allow them to see the skills that must be developed, but this doesn't mean we have to teach them separately. That could often be "inauthentic" or just plain frustrating. Perhaps it can even be intimidating if it makes people feel they are doing something wrong by not being so analytical.
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot of backing to this holistic viewpoint of cognitive tasks. Not just on the humanities side, with philosophers like John Dewey and Kenneth Burke, or social scientists like Donald Polkinghorne, but also from cognitive scientists like Roger Shank and Janet Kolodner.
Simulations often work to bring in the emotional side of these stories of practice as well, adding stress and conflict to the mix. Who needs movies when you have powerful learning experiences like these?
I am not sure if this will work so it is a bit of a test. I agree with the principle of teaching with stories. THe story part gets people engaged and it becomes more of a knowledge-sharing dialogue. As instructors, we are often called experts but the expertise usually is around the room. It is our job to stimulate sharing. Stories tend to make learners much more comfortable and we, as instructors, also learn a lot.
ReplyDeleteKent,
DeleteThe engagement aspect of stories that you mention is very important. For me the two powerful aspects of stories is in the areas of motivation and context. If a learner is wondering what something really might mean to them, a good story can provide the motivation for them to dig deeper into a topic or to pay greater attention.
Likewise, a good story can provide context that allows a person to engage schema of life events or problem situations that are similar within their past experience.