Students Consider the “Good Life” at the University of Florida

By Daniel Mucinskas

At the University of Florida, Jennifer Smith, Director of the Office for Faculty Development and Teaching Excellence, and Andrew Wolpert, Good Life Course Director and Associate Professor of Classics, have been spearheading a course titled “What Is the Good Life?” This multi-disciplinary course, required of all first-year undergraduate students, explores how people have thought about the meaning of a “good life” for thousands of years and the ways in which we seek, fight for, and celebrate it.

We recently chatted with Smith and Wolpert about this course and particularly its incorporation of The Good Project’s Value Sort as a core class activity. A summary of our conversation is below.

---

Q: How did this course originate? What do you see as its purpose and hope that students learn?

Jennifer: “What Is the Good Life?” is a component of the University of Florida’s “UF Core,” a series of general education courses. This past year, nearly seven thousand freshmen have completed the course, which is required for students in all colleges at the University, regardless of topic of study.

Andrew: The UF Core focuses on the themes of “meaning-making” are “purpose exploration.” In “What Is the Good Life?”, we want students to delve deep into the ideas and concepts that we discuss in class and to realize that this course is indeed applicable to their own lives. By examining a wide range of works from the arts and the humanities, students come to realize that the “good life” is a complex concept that has little to do with ephemeral pleasures. It is about what you must do for yourself and others in order to live a meaningful life. We try to crack the term open and examine the “good life” across time and cultures.

Jennifer: In course feedback, some students report that they don’t understand the relevance of this course to their areas of study or wider lives. We want all of our students to realize that the question of what constitutes an ideal life is important to everyone and that what we value affects the decisions we make every day and eventually the trajectory of life. Even though it may seem abstract and unimportant, the way you think about a “good life” does have a real impact. This course allows first-year students to explore and put into words their own personal values, laying a groundwork of self-knowledge before they move on the following year to consider the values of society and their place within it.

Q: How is The Good Project’s Value Sort implemented as a part of this course?

Jennifer: We start the semester with our Career Resource Center’s “Valuing Your Values” activity, which is similar to The Good Project’s Value Sort. Students are asked to pick ten values from a list that are important to them. They must then narrow the list to five values and discuss the trade-offs they face in narrowing that list.

Andrew: The list includes items like “power and authority,” “achievement,” “family,” “autonomy,” “location,” and “challenge” and is meant to focus on values that relate to a wide range of careers. Many first-year students (and their parents) are concerned about starting a career, but they don’t take the time to consider whether their envisioned professions are compatible with their values. We try to get them to sit back and consider big questions like, “What do you want your life to look like?” and “What happens when you pick a career that does or does not align with your values?”

Later in the semester, we ask students to complete The Good Project’s Value Sort in order to help them answer questions about what they prioritize and why. By ranking the values found in this activity, they get an even better sense of what is most important to them. We also ask them if any value is not listed which they find personally meaningful.

Jennifer: I have found that The Good Project’s Value Sort is easy to use and provides clear results to students. They then choose one value or belief in particular and record an audio essay explaining its importance in their own lives. Students are asked to relate their personal value or belief to one of the course readings.

Q: One of the unique aspects of this course is the audio essay. Tell me a little more about that.

Jennifer: The inspiration for the audio essay, the final product of the semester, was the “This I Believe” audio essay series, which was broadcast on NPR from 2005 to 2009 (see thisibelieve.org). Students record themselves talking about a dearly held value or belief for three minutes. We have a competition in which the writers of the best essays of the semester have the opportunity to be chosen as finalists for a scholarship. Moving forward, we hope to use these finalist recordings as examples for future students to emulate. Faculty members can bring these audio essays and multimedia into “What is the Good Life?” as well as their other courses. I think it helps students to create a personal emotional connection with the material.

Andrew: What’s neat about this assignment is that it gives students the time to reflect on their values; they often don’t have the opportunity to engage in such an activity until they enroll in the course. The “This I Believe” audio essay allows UF students to express their ideas of the “good life” in concrete terms and see how their own ideas relate to the works that we have studied. Overall, students have responded positively!

Civil Servants’ Craftsmanship: a Good Work Toolkit Approach

by Wiljan Hendrikx & Hans Wilmink

What does the craftsmanship of Dutch civil servants entail, and what does it take to support it?

Faced with this challenging question, a Dutch Ministry’s HR department in The Hague called the Dutch Professional Honor Foundation for help. Armed with a Good Work Toolkit-based approach, 4 groups with a total of 28 participating civil servants took up this challenge with their peers in 4 sessions per group. The 16 meetings were organized between October 2013 and January 2014. Together they formed a ‘developmental trajectory’ aimed at exploring civil servants’ Excellence, Ethics and Engagement, and strengthening their capacity to recognize, think about, discuss and act upon dilemmas faced in daily working life.

In 2 of the 4 groups there was debate about the approach used at the start of their first session. Participants were uncertain about what to make of the project, and their questions centered in particular around the intentions of the ministry:

“To explore and define for yourself what the core of your role entails? Is this really what the ministry expects us to do? Do we really get the discretion to think about these issues and discuss them independently?” they questioned. Moreover, a tone of uncertainty also resonated through their questions; civil servants had to ask themselves: are we capable and reliable workers or are we independent professionals?

Despite these initial doubts and hesitations, practically all participants pushed through. During the project, the tide turned and participants started to actively engage in the debates about Excellence, Ethics and Engagement within their own work, eagerly sharing their own stories. By the end of the project, a delegation of participants even volunteered to exchange thoughts with the ministry’s management on how to continue working with Good Work ideas and notions.

We can report several interesting findings based on the group discussions. First of all, we came across a number of core motives that civil servants – at least of this particular department – seem to share, causing them to be really engaged with civil service. First, our participants shared a strong desire to serve their minister, regardless of his/her ‘political color’. “Serving your minister” was seen as an honorable duty in and of itself. Second, they expressed a strong wish to put their expertise to (good) use. Being able to show what you can do and being appreciated for doing so within as well as outside of the organization is rewarding. Values like” being objective” and “independence” were often mentioned in this context – having the discretion to think for yourself independently of dominant trends. Third, our participants all felt personally involved in the policy domain of their ministry and the ‘common good’ it strives to serve.

Moreover, the group sessions allowed us to identify several dilemmas and tensions civil servants encounter in their work. First, there is a strong tension – sometimes even conflict – between civil service and political management. The bifurcated point of view of a professional civil servant and of a member of a political party often lead to vastly different solutions to a problem or situation; the latter attaching much more value to political feasibility and desirability. Second, we can discern a tension between civil service and society. A problem orsituation can be perceived in a completely different way from a technical/professional viewpoint than from a societal one, creating imbalances in the societal support base. A final tension we came across is between political management and society. Not only politicians, but also civil servants need to have a keen eye for societal interests and sensitivities. It is not directly up to the civil servant to neutralize the tension, but it is seen as his duty to signal and explicate these in order to communicate them to their political management, even when they are politically unwelcome.

Using Good Work concepts of Excellence, Ethics and Engagement to explore and discuss civil servants’ craftsmanship really opened discussions that would not have otherwise been possible. A narrative-based approach combined with small discussion exercises turned out to be a good starting point for debate. The greatest challenge for our participants was the use of the Good Work Toolkit’s narratives. Despite the undisputed quality of these stories, the civil servants did not recognize themselves enough in these stories, nor did they associate them with their own experiences. Our important lesson: focus on narratives from the profession itself right away and use these to collect participants’ own – similar – stories as soon as possible. As a consequence, we have developed our own toolkit, particularly aimed at civil servants (see Gerard van Nunen’s blog).

During a final collective session, after the end of the project, 14 participants volunteered to assist the ministry in its efforts to make Good Work for civil servants commonplace. This is an initial, promising sign that we have had some impact. We look forward to maintaining and improving civil servants’ craftsmanship through regular discussion and reflection among peers, based on our shared narratives.

Good Work Toolkit for Civil Servants

by Gerard Van Nunen

Martin is a 35 year old civil servant in the office of Migration and Asylum at the Ministry of Safety and Justice in The Netherlands. After he finished his masters in ‘Policy and Management in Multicultural Society,’ Martin specialized in migration issues because he wanted to help people seeking safety and shelter in a new environment. Human dignity and human rights are very important values for Martin.

A few years ago Martin collaborated on a vision and mission statement for the Ministry. He believes he contributed to a just immigration and naturalization policy. This work gave Martin personal and professional satisfaction. Further, managers and other policy makers see Martin as loyal and competent.

But times have changed. Martin finds that the political tone in government has hardened. Politicians and fellow civil servants frequently speak of immigrants in terms of ‘problems’ or ‘costs.’ The Secretary of State wants to rewrite the vision and mission statement and has asked Martin to be involved in the process. The new statement must focus on the rapid return of immigrants, stricter eligibility requirements for immigration, and cost reduction. On the one hand, Martin is flattered that he has been approached to rewrite the statement. On the other hand, he has serious professional and moral doubts about the new policies he has to express in the statement. What should Martin do?

For years, civil servants have faced growing challenges in their work. Professional expertise is increasingly undervalued, and their work seems to be obstructed by a tangle of rules and unwieldy structures. These developments adversely impact the intrinsic motivations of these workers. The Dutch Professional Honor Foundation promotes professionalism across different fields. In cooperation with the Dutch Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Professional Honor Foundation has organized a ‘Good Work Pilot’ for civil servants working at the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment. This initiative is part of a larger national project called ‘Better Work in Public Administration’ (Beter Werken in het Openbaar Bestuur), which strives to improve the work done within the public sector. Inspired by the Good Work Toolkit, the Professional Honor Foundation developed a toolkit specifically aimed at civil servants and their complex professional environment, which is characterized by political, societal and organizational demands and by conflicting professional standards. The Good Work Toolkit for Civil Servants provides workers the opportunity to revisit what professionalism means to them and to explore the tensions happening within the profession. The Toolkit poses the following question: How can inherent tensions within the profession of government/public policy be dealt with in such a way that makes Good Work possible? The concrete case of Martin’s professional dilemma above, taken from the Toolkit, shows that Good Work in public policy is not easy or clear-cut. The question about what is ‘Good’ in the Civil Service profession is open to discussion.

The Good Work Toolkit for Civil Servants consists of narratives, assignments and reflection questions that deal with and analyze the practical reality of civil servants. All materials are based on real-life experiences. With the help of this toolkit, professionals are encouraged to discuss their own work and to learn from each other.

The toolkit for Dutch civil servants is structured into four sessions. The introductory session discusses the concept of ‘Good Work’ and asks ‘what is good?’ with regard to civil service. After the introductory session, three substantive meetings follow, each addressing one of the three E’s. For Excellence – which we have translated into the Dutch word for ‘craftsmanship’ – participants learn that its interpretation depends upon personal, institutional and societal standards. With Ethics, the participants take a closer look at the concept of ‘responsibility’ and how it pertains to their role as civil servants, asking the question, “what are consequences of my work for others?” The last session revolves around Engagement as an essential part of Good Work. Civil servants are invited to discuss the personal meaningfulness and importance of their work.

Sample cases, like Martin’s dilemma, facilitate the discussion of important issues, ideas and conflicting values within the profession of civil servants. This is done in a non-threatening and open environment. During the sessions, participants reflect on the experiences of others, enabling them to reflect on their own experiences, and discuss the overall profession with each other. In this way, useful strategies are developed to make Good Work possible, despite the hierarchical structure of the organization in which civil servants inevitably find themselves.

The Good Work Toolkit for Civil Servants is not a ‘course’ or ‘training’ and does not intend to form any professional code of conduct or list of competencies. The goal of the sessions is, through dialogue, to strengthen civil servants’ abilities to analyze different types of problems from their daily professional practice. The toolkit encourages participants to think for themselves and to exchange experiences in a group, so that they may discover and make explicit the core values and responsibilities of the civil servants’ profession. In this way, the toolkit is a constructive contribution to the quality of civil service and professional pride.

Caution – Construction Site: Using the GoodWork Toolkit in the Classroom

by Shernaz Minwalla

As the Academic Research Program Director at University Liggett School in Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan, I use the GoodWork Toolkit while teaching students about the research process to have them understand the importance of reflecting on their values and to see how these values impact different aspects of their research. These aspects include but are not limited to their choice of topics, the way they conduct research, the way they cite sources, and the way they interact with their peers and mentors. Good Work was first introduced to me by Wendy Fischman, a researcher for Project Zero, when ULS was first designing the Academic Research Program, specifically to create lesson plans that would involve the students in an exploration of their values and the challenges to doing excellent, engaging, and ethical work. Wendy and fellow researcher, Lynn Barendsen, were able to visit with research class members and note the breadth and depth of the projects chosen. Projects  entailed topics such as the effects of music on OCD symptoms, futurism, the Detroit Public School System, and ecologically-friendly paint for artists. Wendy and Lynn shared their knowledge of Good Work with Liggett’s pre-k through twelve faculty, which led to other uses of the Good Work Toolkit, such as with the Fine and Performing Arts Players Board, advisory, and even faculty meetings. At the GoodWork Conference in March 2013, Phil Moss, Chairperson for the Arts Department, and I engaged participants in activities we use in our courses. More importantly, we met with many wonderful people embracing the need to incorporate the Good Work philosophy in our practices. When asked to teach a mini-course on Good Work at the Project Zero Summer Institute, I just assumed that everyone attending the conference was familiar with the Good Project ideas.  Because this was not the case, it gave Wendy and I an opportunity to explain the philosophy and history for the design of Good Work and its uses.

Although their toolkits didn’t contain hammers and screwdrivers, teachers at the Project Zero Summer Institute 2013 used markers, poster paper, sticky notes and materials from the GoodWork Toolkit to construct an environment conducive to learning about Good Work. To establish their preliminary thoughts about excellent work, participants wrote three words, two questions, and one metaphor or simile that came to mind, applying the 3-2-1 routine from Making Thinking Visible. Because teachers are active people, they stretched their legs and minds to engage in activities and discussions to answer the question,” what is excellent work?” Posters with characteristics of good journalists, artists, business people, educators, and students hung on the wall. Partners explained why various objects around the room were good examples of excellent work,  ranging from a coffee mug to intricately designed scarves.

After a flurry of activity, participants slowed the learning down and took some time to reflect on their own work goals and their definition of success. Sharing initiatives and challenges with a new friend or two provided an opportunity to note similarities and possibly come up with new ideas. Participants were then given some quiet time to read one of many vignettes from the toolkit,” Silence isn’t always golden.” Follow-up group discussions were rich with examples of how the story relates to the many roadblocks our students face today to doing good work. Teachers also noted that, “it’s easier for students to talk about somebody else’s situation rather than their own, so the vignettes are great because they are interviews of real people dealing with real dilemmas.”

Spread out over the floor or on a window sill, participants used the Value Sort to rank their values, an activity that many claim “hurts their brain.” The activity allows students to see what values drive their work at home, at school, on the athletic fields, or on stage. Participants in the session were able to review the session through the Compass Points routine from Making Thinking Visible. We shared our excitements, questions, and suggestions for implementing Good Work in the classroom. Some stated that they will conduct GoodWork Toolkit activities during advisory time, while others suggested faculty meetings and theater groups. At the end of the session, teachers left with an intangible toolkit of their own – activities, routines, and most importantly, new friends.

Young Children Exploring the 3 Es (Three Part Series): Part One – What’s happening in the classroom?

by Jo Hoffman

Since June of 2011, my daughter Amy and I have been working with the GoodWork Toolkit team to adapt some of the Toolkit activities so that they would be appropriate for children who are six to eight years old—the ages of the students in my daughter Amy’s 1st and 2nd grade multiage class.  Encouraged by Lynn, Wendy, and Margot and collaborating with me, Amy wrote curriculum activities for each of the 3 Es.  She is in her second year of incorporating Toolkit activities into her unit on citizenship in the community, and through writing units that focused on narratives and self-expression.  Together we are looking for evidence of development in the children’s thinking about the concepts of the 3 Es.  Amy has collected work samples, photos, and audio recordings from her young learners that are the result of many, many concrete experiences exploring the concepts of the 3 Es.

Amy has begun each school year with conversations about GoodWork. (Amy and her students describe activities involving the 3Es as GoodWork time.)  She embarked on exploration of each of the 3Es with essential questions and discussion designed to introduce her students to the concepts surrounding the “E” to be explored.  To gauge children’s initial understandings and as a pre-assessment, a word list is created via class discussion/brainstorming of all the meanings they have for the “E” being investigated.  Amy offers an age-appropriate definition for them and then encourages the class to develop their own definitions too over the course of the days of related experiences.  As an example, the definition she uses to introduce ethics is:  Ethics is what you believe makes you a good friend, brother or sister, or classmate.  Ethics is being with others and respecting whoever you’re with so that everyone is working together in a happy way to get things done.  One of her students developed this definition for ethics after several days of related activities:  “Ethics is having confidence in yourself to make smart choices.”  Other activities within the 3 or 4 days of initial focus on each of the Es included narratives and student responses, word mapping, webquests and the value sort activity using technology, and other developmentally appropriate related activities.  For instance, an activity to explore Engagement is for children to reflect on the things that they like to do and think they are good at doing, developing trading cards with pictures and writing about their “expertise.” Then working with a partner, they trade cards and think of ways that they can help one another in their class community using something they are good at doing.

Amy has been doing a great job documenting the activities and discussions surrounding the 3Es.  It is fascinating to listen to audio recordings of the students in their class discussions about GoodWork and in looking at the photos that Amy has taken of their word maps and word sorts.   Her 1st and 2nd graders’ responses and participation vary, as even young learners bring a variety of prior experiences and understandings to the ‘table’.  Listening in on a class discussion, we hear students’ initial perceptions of What is GoodWork?  For example, GoodWork is: “getting better at something, trying new things,” trying and trying and not giving up.”  In a class conversation about Engagement, we hear some insightful early thoughts from her students to the prompt – It’s important to like what you’re learning about because:  “it helps you get better at stuff,”” it makes it fun,” “it makes you try harder”.  The discussion deepens their understandings as they interact with one another and compare their ideas.  Amy guides them to expand their beginning understandings by partnering them to tackle an online word mapping activity, adding higher level and more descriptive vocabulary.

After this September and October’s GoodWork activities, the students came up with the initial idea to do something “good” for someone or some group.  Through class discussions and ideas about what to do and for whom, it was decided to do a school-wide read-a-thon to raise money for a yet-to-be determined school in Nepal working with an organization that could help deliver school supplies.  Not long after, Superstorm Sandy hit NJ and when they finally had school again 10 days later, Amy and her students decided that due to widespread damage and devastation, there would be people and schools needing money for supplies right in their own state. Since Amy is always seeking ideas to keep the GoodWork conversation alive throughout the school year, she’ll be using short video clips that resonate with the 3Es for her students to respond to after the holidays.  The spring brings the final activity where students write their own GoodWork narratives.  Last year’s work samples were intriguing.  Here’s an example that two students wrote together:

Bob and Mary are building a wind farm.  James could not build a wind farm by himself, but he wanted to.  He said, I cannot do this.  Upon hearing James’s frustration, a girl names Starr told him they could make a wind farm together!  So, they got some stuff to make it and then they made even more.  They still put on long wires, next they put on the long tube, they also put blades and then it looked awesome and they were happy.  Then they decided they would make even more windmills so they got to work and did the same thing.  Finally, they connected the bird baths to the windmills and the water went from one side to another!

The examples of students’ words and work I’ve included here are part of the growing body of evidence that there has been development in the children’s thinking and understanding of excellence, ethics, and engagement.  They seem to be discovering the variety of meanings that the concepts of the Toolkit embrace. There are still more questions to answer, such as what additional activities could be planned for expanding their learning?  Mid-way through year two of young children exploring the 3Es, we will continue to examine the student work samples for more outcomes and indicators — evidence that investigating the concepts of the Toolkit has had a positive effect.  I look forward to sharing our findings – more to come!