February+2013c

Saturday, February 23, 2013.
I find it curious and a tiny bit wonderful how a theme can develop over the course of a few days. Last week at [|COSL] [|George Couros] encouraged the gathering of school leaders to "jump". Be courageous. Try the new thing, the scary thing. The next day [|Michael Fullan] further reminded the group that "[|Ready Fire Aim]" is all about doing something, trying the new thing, and then recalibrating based on the results. Flash forward a few nights and I took in the thoughts of [|Jim Collins] about "[|Empirical Creativity]". The gist: do the new thing, but do it a little bit at a time when you start. Once you've calibrated the risks, then take the plunge, commit, and be ready to apply your resources fully to the new initiative. At every turn it seemed that I was confronted with well informed speakers with a similar message: identify a challenge, measure it up, and then go for it.

As I mulled over these messages and connected the dots, I got ready to attend and present at the Manitoba [|Byte Conference] in Neepawa. I looked forward to meeting with people I hadn't seen in a while, particularly [|Darren Kuropatwa]. I attended Darren's morning session on story finding, and the "go for it" theme from the previous week started to sing in my head. Twice in the presentation Darren pointed out that student engagement is a means, not an end. Many people enamored of educational technology claim student engagement as a major benefit; Darren's criticism (in the middle of an Ed Tech conference) was pointed and purposeful. He didn't leave us to wonder where he was going either- engagement, he postulated, is a means to empowerment. The end is the empowerment of the student, not simply engagement. I ate it up. I too have worried about too much trumpeting of engagement in Ed Tech circles, so it was good to have a way to think beyond that idea. Darren repeated the mantra- Engagement is the means, Empowerment is the end. Engagement is the means, Empowerment is the end.I rolled that over and over on the two and a half hour drive home from Neepawa.

When I woke up this morning, a new idea had formed, and it has taken me all day long to get to the computer to write it out. After considering G. Couros, Fullan, and Collins, I came to a shocking conclusion. I think Darren Kuropatwa is only partly right. Sure, engagement is a means, but the end can't be empowerment. Somehow that whole "means/end" model is just way too linear, and **empowerment is useless if the learner doesn't do anything with his or her new power**. In this post-modern age [|Michele Foucault] has written the book on power and power relations. It is true that personal power comes from engagement, but power also leads somewhere. Power leads to action. Power without action is meaningless, and without action it isn't really power at all. So, "power" and "empowerment" make for a poor end. Just like Engagement, Empowerment is only a means. Empowerment is the means to Influence. **Influence is the end**, and Empowerment is the means. **I'll define Influence here as "the demonstrable ability to effect change."** Someone with Influence makes things happen. That Influence comes from Empowerment, and that Empowerment comes from interest, which is Engagement. On this topic I like Darren's start; I just don't like his finish.

 I woke up with a cyclical model in my head. Sure, //start// with personal Engagement. It is great to be meaningfully interested in something. Engagement leads to Empowerment if there is a good coach/teacher/Yoda along the way. Even without a coach, a person who is Engaged might become Empowered, but a coach/teacher/Yoda can make Empowerment come more quickly. Here's the point: what exactly is the learner Empowered to //**do**//? Empowerment seems an awful lot like "potential energy" in the world of Physics. That big old rock at the top of the cliff is never going to fall on Wile E. Coyote by itself. Massive potential energy; massive Empowerment, something could happen, but nothing is going on. Rather anti-climactic, really. Nothing changes. However, take an Empowered Road Runner, and have it create change with a "Beep Beep" and all of the realized power of that rock is going to effect a very painful change on that poor old Coyote. Power, then, is an intermediary. **Influence is the end**. It is through Influence that people are changed.

Everybody has interests, and we pay attention to our interests. We get engaged, and that Engagement grows into an ability (read " Empowerment ") to share with others, and to make a positive impact (read " Influence ") on the people around us. I have an interest in all things Ed. Tech. Darren has encouraged my interest- he has been a good teacher/coach/[|Yoda] to me. I have been Empowered by him and his ideas. However, the evidence of all of this is the //Influence// that he has had on me. I'm writing all of this stuff due to the //Influence// of many thinkers, including Darren K.

To complete the cycle, maybe something that I write here will Engage others in the subject as well, and the circle of Engagement, Empowerment, and Influence will start all over again. The process is cyclical: identify a challenge, measure it up, and then go for it. Learning to take the plunge and to use our power is the crucial step, and that takes some bravery. Apt that today [|Seth Godin chirps out a pithy post about bravery and action.] I think that [|Tara McLauchlan's new blog] is a good example of what Godin and I are talking about. Tara knows this stuff, and now she is //doing something new//. Call it Empirical Creativity, or Ready Fire Aim, the fact is, she is trying something new, and that is proof of learning. Enough learning. //DO SOMETHING WITH WHAT YOU KNOW//. "[|Share]", as [|Dean Shareski] would say. I like Darren's idea of Empowerment, because it gets us past our fixation on Engagement. However, having power is not enough; if we are learning, we need to share, and in sharing we influence others. As teachers, we love to learn, but we must also go forth, and go forth bravely.