diagram above) in the first cycle could equate to the Consciously
Incompetent level in the new cycle. Reflective learners possess
expert competence in the subject at a determined skill or
method, but not in different and new methods. So perhaps
representing the learning of new methods for existing expertise
(at say level 4 or 4) in terms of a repeating 4/5-part cycle is a
reasonable way to approach the 'response to external
innovation' scenario, or 'internal innovation' for the same
reasons.
The observations which follow are from M Singh (23 Feb 2009):
"...I have read the discussion especially with reference to the 5th
stage, and have tried to integrate J M Fisher's theory of the Process
of Transition to add extra emotional perspective. When someone
becomes conscious of incompetence, emotions of 'anxiety',
'happiness', 'fear' and or 'denial' may be experienced. Feelings of
'threat' (to previous learning), 'guilt' (at departing from previous
1127
learning) and possibly 'depression' (at having to relearn) can
arise until a firm commitment is made to the new learning. If the
commitment to the new learning is not strong, feelings of
'hostility' or 'disillusionment' can arise. The ability to
demonstrate the skill partially is the beginning of a 'gradual
acceptance', which through practice then naturally leads to
Conscious Competence. A lack of discipline in this area could
repeat emotional sequences of earlier transitions. Mastery at this
stage enables Unconscious Competence and builds confidence to
teach others the skill. This is arguably the fifth 'reflective' stage.
The Cognitive Domain of Blooms Taxonomy offers further useful
perspective, by which we can overlay the Bloom Cognitive
Domain learnings stages onto the Conscious Competence stages:
Bloom's 'Recall' and 'Understand' knowledge fall within
Conscious Incompetence. 'Application' is within Conscious
Competence. 'Analysis' is within Unconscious Competence. The
'create and build' aspects of 'Synthesis' equate to what some
suggest is a 5th stage of the Conscious Competence model.
Bloom's 'Evaluation' is a step beyond this - moving to objective
detachment from the subjective involvement present up to and
included in the Bloom 'Synthesis' stage, equating to the fifth
'reflective' stage of the Conscious Competence model. At the
higher end of the reflective stage, mastery can be directed
outwardly towards innovation for a wider (not self-directed)
purpose, in which the master is critical of even his own
achievements. Two driving factors here are concern for the
greater good and humility regarding success of self." (Edited and
abridged from a longer piece entitled 'Emotions in the Conscious
Competence learning Model' from, and with thanks to, Maanveer
Singh, CPBA, Kingfisher Training Academy, Mumbai, India, 23
Feb 2009.)
I received this amusing contribution from Dr V Kumar (19 Apr
2009): "...Some 20 years ago, a colleague suggested to me that
the 5th stage in the Conscious Competence cycle should be
1128
'Confident Incompetence'. He was referring to some of our
professors and senior teachers, somewhat past their prime..."
The joke is a warning of the dangers of lapsing into complacency
after attaining mastery in anything, and is therefore a very useful
point.
And this, from Lee Freeman (May 2009): "...Regarding the
conscious competence model, I came up with this little thought...
'The unconscious incompetent doesn't know he's incompetent
and when he is competent, is unconscious of his competence.
And when his meta-conscious competence imparts vigilant
omniscience, truly he's a fool when he believes he's omnipotent!
Or maybe he's just unconscious of this…"
Here are interesting comments from Charles H Grover (March
2010): "...I have been reading the discussions about adding a 5th
step to this model, and suggest that the first four are simply out
of step. I refer you to the 'He who knows not...' proverb (below).
The old Confucious/Persian/Arabic saying has step three
(Conscious Competence) as the ultimate, while step four
(Unconscious Competence) is the person asleep, and he/she
needs to be woken up. I believe this really makes Will Taylor's
excellent diagram clearer; discovery, learning, practice,
mentorship. Who are we to hold their hands when they are
inviting us to climb on their shoulders? A fifth stage is easier to
define when we get the first four in order..."
Origins and of conscious competence model
It is not clear who originated the very first 'conscious
competence' learning model. As well as various modern authors,
sources as old as Confucius and Socrates are cited as possible
earliest originators.
You will see here that Gordon Training International is popularly
considered to be the originator of the conscious competence
model. The Gordon Training 'Learning Stages' model certainly
1129
matches the definitions within what we know as the conscious
competence model, although it refers to the stages as 'skilled and
unskilled', rather than 'competence and incompetence'.
Interestingly many people prefer the words skilled/unskilled
terms because they are less likely to offend people. Gordon
Training have confirmed to me that they did use the terminology
competent/incompetent prior to redefining the terminology, but
they did not develop the matrix presentation of the concept, and
it remains unclear where the 'competence' originally term came
from, and whether it pre-dated the Gordon model, or was a
subsequent interpretation. The California-based Gordon
Training organisation, founded by Dr Thomas Thomas Gordon,
states that their Learning Stages model (called 'The Four Stages
for Learning Any New Skill') was developed by former GTI
employee, Noel Burch over 30 years ago. To what extent GTI and
Noel Burch based their Learning Stages concept on earlier ideas
is not clear - perhaps none, perhaps a little. Whatever, Gordon
Training International certainly seem today to be the most
commonly referenced source in connection with the conscious
competence ('skilled/unskilled learning stages') theory.
Here are some other suggestions and comments about the
conscious competence model's origins.
Many people compare the Conscious Competence model with
Ingham and Luft's Johari Window, which is a similarly elegant
2x2 matrix. Johari deals with self-awareness; Conscious
Competence with learning stages. The models are different, and
Ingham and Luft most certainly were not responsible for the
Conscious Competence concept.
Some know the conscious competence matrix better as the
'conscious competence learning ladder', and I've received a
specific suggestion (ack Sue Turner) that the learning model was
originated in this 'ladder' form by someone called Kogg;
1130
however, this is where that particular trail starts and ends;
unless you know better...
Some believe that W C Howell was responsible for Conscious
Competence in its modern form - apparently the model can be
found in W C Howell and E A Fleishman (eds.), Human
Performance and Productivity. Vol 2: Information Processing and
Decision Making. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1982. (Thanks A Trost)
Other origin suggestions are as follows (the www.learning-
org.com message board contains much on the subject):
Linda Adams, president of Gordon Training International
suggested that the "Learning Stages (model) i.e., unconsciously
unskilled,
consciously
unskilled,
consciously
skilled,
unconsciously skilled ... was developed by one of our employees
and course developers (Noel Burch) in the 1970s and first
appeared in our Teacher Effectiveness Training Instructor Guide
in the early 70s..."
The model has been a part of all of GTI's training programs since
that time, but they never added a fifth stage, and did not devise
the matrix representation, the origins of which remain a
mystery. Separately Linda has kindly informed me (August
2006) that Noel Burch used the 'competence/incompetence'
terminology prior to redefining it as 'skilled/unskilled' so as to
fit better with their training. It is not known what Noel Burch's
prior notions, or influences in developing the model (if there
were any), might have been.
The following suggestions for the most part actually pre-date the
above details about Gordon Training but are nevertheless
interesting as regards other reference points and possible earlier
origins.
Kenn Martin suggested the originator is identified by Michael A.
Konopka, Professor of Leadership and Management Army
Management Staff College Fort Belvoir, Virginia, as being DL
1131
Kirkpatrick, 1971, (presumably Donald Kirkpatrick, originator
of the Kirkpatrick Learning Evaluation Model) from 'A Practical
Guide for Supervisory Training and Development', Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
A suggestion attributed by Bob Williams to Paul Denley, who "...
writes about his learning in terms of a movement from
Unconscious
Incompetence,
Conscious
Incompetence,
Unconscious Competence and Conscious Competence........." goes
on to say that "...Paul's reference to this model is: P. Dubin
(1962) from Human Relations in Administration, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall."
Bob Williams also includes a suggestion by Susan Gair: "... I have
been interested for a long time to know the source of this adult
learning model (unconscious incompetence etc). I have a
document which discusses it, and then cites Howell 1977, p38-
40..."
Development and conflict resolution expert Bill McLaughlin
suggests Bateman is the Conscious Competence model
originator. Any additional information about this would be
gratefully received. (See Tony Thacker's comments below)
David Hurst, Ontario-based speaker, writer and consultant on
management, has looked for origins of the conscious competence
model, and suggests that the first mention he could find was in
an interview with W Lewis Robinson in the Personnel Journal v
53, No. 7 July 1974 pages 538-539, in which Robinson cited the
four categories (UC/IC, C/IC, C/C and UC/C) in the context of
training, and pointed out that UC/C practitioners often weren't
effective as teachers. Hurst says the next mention was in an
article by Harvey Dodgson "Management Learning in Markstrat:
The ICL Experience", Journal of Business Research 15, 481-489
(1987), which used Kolb's learning styles and then showed the
four conscious competence categories in a cycle but gave no
references for it. Hurst corresponded with Dodgson but never
1132
got to the bottom of where the model came from. Hurst says also
that Maslow has been suggested as a possibile original source
but that he's not been able to find reference in Maslow's
principle works.
And from Andrew Newton, UK consultant trainer (Jan 2005):
"When I came across the conscious competence model, it seemed
to fit my counselling skills development: Initially couldn’t do it
and was unaware that I couldn’t (unconscious incompetence). I
then trained with Relate and realized I wasn’t very good
(conscious incompetence). I worked hard and improved
(conscious competence) until I found increasingly that I did this
naturally in my work with colleagues and students (unconscious
competence). I continued to use these skills (I thought, quite
effectively) but realized years later, when I went on more
training, that I was in fact quite rusty and had regressed into
unconscious incompetence again (from 4 to 1). I would suggest
that, unless you are a reflective practitioner, you run the risk of
this dramatic shift (how many car drivers are not as good as they
think when they have been driving for 30 years?). This may be
similar to David Baume’s 'reflective competence'. " (Ack A
Newton)
Carole Schubert suggests (Jan 2005) the following: The
unconsciously competent/consciously competent model I have
known for many years as a skills development framework. I feel
that a final category adds completeness, and use the analogy of
learning to drive a car to explain it:
non-driver = unconscious incompetence
beginner = conscious incompetence
just passed driving test = conscious competence
driver who gets to work without remembering the drive (or
drunk driver!!) = unconscious competence
The fifth level is the advanced driver who is processing what is
happening 'in the here and now' without their cognisance
1133
interfering with their abilities; understanding why they are
doing what they are doing and making conscious subtle changes
in light of this understanding. Carole Schubert also points out a
reference by worldtrans.org to the fifth level, which the
unidentified writer calls: 'meta-conscious competence' ,
whereby a capability is mastered to the point that the
practitioner is consciously aware at all times of what
unconscious or sub-conscious abilities he/she is using, and is
able to analyse, adapt and augment their activity in other ways.
This inerpretation is consistent with many other people's ideas
that the fifth level represents a level of cognisance, which is
above and beyond the fourth level of 'subconscious automation'.
Furthermore, (Carole Schubert is another to suggest that) Dr
Thomas Gordon, founder of Gordon Training International,
originally developed the Conscious Competence Learning Stages
Model in the early 1970s, when it first appeared in Gordon's
'Teacher Effectiveness Training Instructor Guide'. Its
terminology was then unconsciously unskilled, consciously
unskilled, consciously skilled, unconsciously skilled, and there
was no fifth level. (Ack C Schubert)
And this train-the-trainer perspective, from James Matthews
(Feb 2005), who points out that bringing skills back into
(keeping skills at) conscious competence is necessary where a
person needs to maintain vigilance, or needs to do something
different, notably correct bad habits, or to keep skills fresh and
relevant. In these cases moving skills from unconscious
competence into conscious competence is a necessary step.
Indeed certain types of skills - especially those which concern
safety - should arguably be maintained within the consciously
competence stage, and never be encouraged to 'progress' to
unconscious competence. (Ack James Matthews)
This from Marcia Corenman (Feb 2005): "The Performance
Potential Model bears a resemblance to the Dimensional Model
that was developed in the late 1940’s by psychologists Coffey,
1134
Freedman, Leary, and Ossorio. In the 1950s the Kaiser
foundation and the US Public Health Service sponsored research
projects which were published in 1957. Since then the
Dimensional Model has been demonstrated as a valid
classification of interpersonal behavior and is a dependable tool
for understanding that behavior. I learned about this model in a
book 'Leadership Through People Skills' by Robert E. Lefton,
Ph.D., and Victor R. Buzzotta, Ph.D. © 2004 by Psychological
Associates, Inc." (Ack Marcia Corenman)
Anita Leeds suggests (Mar 2005) points out the similarity and
potential influence of RH Dave's 'Psychomotor Domain' learning
stages model (1970), used in teaching manual skills and part of
Bloom's Taxonomy, and which provides an interesting
comparison alongside the conscious competence four-stage
model: According to Dave's theory, the psychomotor learning
domain emphasises physical skills, coordination, and use of the
motor-skills. Development of these skills requires practice and is
measured in terms of speed, precision, distance, procedures, or
techniques in execution. There are five major categories in RH
Dave's model, whose five stages, given certain learner attitude
and circumstances, could just about be argued overlay the four
stages of the conscious competence model:
1. Imitation: Observes and patterns behavior after someone
else. Performance may be of low quality.
2. Manipulation: Performs skill according to instruction rather
than observation.
3. Develop Precision: Reproduces a skill with accuracy,
proportion and exactness; usually performed independently
of original source.
4. Articulation: Combines more than one skill in a sequence,
achieving harmony and internal consistency.
5. Naturalization: Has a high level of performance. Performance
becomes automatic. Completes one or more skills with ease.
Creativity is based on highly developed skills.
1135
Rey Carr adds (Mar 2005): "Back in the early 1970s I taught
classes called Parent Effectiveness Training. I was trained as an
instructor by (and is another to suggest) Tom Gordon, probably
now called the Gordon Effectiveness Institute. Trainers often met
together to discuss various issues associated with experiences
and improving the curriculum. One of our group talked about
four learning stages as unconscious incompetent through
unconscious competent. However, I came up with a different
model at the time because we thought the language of that four
stage model might be too jargon like for the parents we worked
with in the classes. The model I developed, which we then
adapted for our training materials was also a four stage model,
but the stages were (are) unskilled, skilled, competent,
expert. In the unskilled stage the learner didn't know what to
do, why it might be necessary or valuable to use the skill and if
they did try it, would give up very quickly if encountering any
difficulty whatsoever. In the skilled stage the learner would be
able to perform the skill with some consistency, but often did so
in a robotic or formulaic fashion. In the competent stage the
learner was able to perform the skill with great consistency, but
was mostly a clone of the person who taught them how to do it.
The learner strongly resisted alternative ways to perform the
skill and was strongly connected to the original teacher. In the
expert stage the learner finally found his or her own voice or
style and was continually modifying the skill to fit circumstances,
new learning, and context. Thus while the group of us started out
using the unconscious competence model, eventually each of us
(like myself) went past the wording of the model and became
"expert" in learning stages (no longer needing to explain it the
same way we originally heard it..)" (Ack Rey Carr)
Jillian Duncan suggests (April 2005) the conscious competence
model relates to the work of Professor Albert Bandura, a
pioneer of socil cognitive theory, human efficacy and 'mastery'.
(Ack J Duncan) [Following on from this suggestion I asked
1136
Professor Bandura for his comments about the origins of the
conscious competence model and he replied (15 Apr) "I am not
familiar with the model you describe," which effectively
eliminates Professor Bandura from the list of possible
originators... (AC)]
And another reference to Tom Gordon (from Ingrid Crosser,
Australia, April 2005) "... Regarding your question about the
origins of the Conscious Competence Learning Model, it might
help you to know I came accross the same concept with slightly
different wording in the Parent Effectiveness and the Teacher
Effectiveness Training courses by Thomas Gordon in the late 70s.
It was referred to as the Unconsciously Unskilled to
Unconsciously Skilled stages of learning. I still use it today in my
group work with parents regarding parenting. (Ack Ingrid
Crosser)
Tom Gagnon wrote (April 2006) "I have experienced the
'conscious-competent' material here in Minnesota, USA. It is used
for sales training at the Larry Wilson Learning Center in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. I do not know if Larry Wilson
developed the material or modified it to meet his training
programs." (Ack Tom Gagnon)
Robert Wright suggests (July 2006) that the model can be traced
back to Holmes and Rahe. (Holmes and Rahe are more usually
associated with the Holmes-Rahe crisis/stress life changes scale
- if anyone has knowledge about any work of theirs which relates
to the conscious competence stages then please let me know).
Tina Thuermer (August 2006) is another suggesting Gordon
Training origins: "I think what you are referring to is 'Gordon's
Skill Development Ladder', which is used by Performance
Learning Systems in training teachers in peer coaching. I have
also used it with grad students becoming teachers, and with my
11th and 12th grade students. It's a staircase with the first one
being 'Unconsciously Unskilled' (the fantasy stage - 'Oh, I can do
1137
this, I've been taught, teaching doesn't look too hard'), the
second being 'Consciously Unskilled,' (survival stage: 'Oh my
God, what have I gotten myself into - this is so much harder than
I thought.'), the third being 'Consciously Skilled' (or the
competence stage: 'I know what to do, and I am concentrating
very hard and on a very conscious level to use the techniques I
know I need to be successful') and the final, one, Unconsciously
Skilled (mastery stage: 'I don't have to be consciously operating
all the time - some of the techniques and practices I have
acquired are now wired into me, some of my skills are automatic
- I can save my conscious energy for the ones I'm still working on
developing.'). He (or she) also posits the existence of the
'Unconsciously Talented' - those annoying people who are really
good at something from the beginning - they are wired for that
activity." (Ack Tina Thuermer, Washington International School,
Washington DC)