We do CB intro textbooks wrong
They are written by and for experts who like long lists of concepts; Our strong mental models make these easily digestible and informative
But what beginners need first are those models
I'm writing a textbook which helps students build them
1/3
@jfrickuga Not an issue in the UK.
We are literally not allowed to change student marks once they have been entered, even if we wanted to (unless there has been a verifiable error, etc).
Working on persuasion and the ELM. Is this something that practitioners actually use?
It seems like there is some basic truth that people care about a message sometimes more than others, and so will think about it differently... But how much is reasonable to build around that?
One data point: I was surprised that my students liked it when I had live lectures and also my recorded ones from covid available... even though they had the exact same content.
So maybe if the material is challenging enough, some real duplication is fine?
I got some peer reviews for my text, and more than one said an odd thing:
"don't replace me"
I think I get where they are coming from. My book doesn't just list, it teaches, and that is closer to an instructor's job...
But.. is this legit?
Truthfully there are times as an instructor I've felt insecure that I didn't have enough information to teach (especially when younger).
Is that what is going on here? And if it is, then how do you help the instructor (we are people too, and it's a hard job!)
So we have to stop ourselves and start with context.
I look at the explanation as I write on it, and it feels patronizingly obvious - and it is... to me, but not to beginners.
This is just the curse of knowledge. This is what I mean by teaching past it.
What do beginners need that experts can't see?
Example: Teaching models of behaviour change, the temptation is to launch straight into the key content ("people are guided by attitudes which have X components...").
It makes sense to me, but some beginners are lost
Why?
"Behaviour change" is obvious to you and me, but it is jargon to beginners.
We hear it and immediately think of unhealthy eating, products not being bought, climate change, loneliness epidemics, etc
But beginners don't intuit that. Not unless we spell it out.
@SEthanMilne I think where I get closest to this idea is week 2, talking about goals. They can be concrete and situational (buy now) vs. chronic and more abstract. There's a nice having/doing/being model for describing those layers
And these goals trigger each other in flows of consciousness
What idea is most foundational to CB thinking?
If we want students to 'get it' beyond a surface level, then what SHOULD we teach on day 1?
What insight will best help beginners unlock the rest of the content?
Do you have your answer? 1/4
@SEthanMilne Huh. That's interesting. My first reaction is that I like it.
I'm going to have to marinate on that a little now (I love it when that happens).
From an academic lens, there is Service Dominant Logic (i.e., you can't make value for consumers, only co-create it with them).
From a strategy lens, there is market Orientation. Lots of data that the whole organization wants to orient around creating consumer value.
4/4
What ideas can we teach that are vehicles for this decentering insight?
From a practitioner lens, we can talk about the Kotler core product idea (i.e., knowing what people buy is not the actual product).
3/4
@DrMarianMakkar@RMITCoBL Plus a subtle undertone of "well it's ok if rich people do it, but it's a defect in poor young people" which is... maybe true in the way a bank manager would understand it, but not so much for psychological wellbeing and/or social justice...
@paulrconnor The replies are fantastic, but it's hard to tell if the original poster is trolling. A look at the rest of their account says they are, but are also into weird covid conspiracy theories.
It's all pure uncut Poe's law