Learning: Goldrush

Sooner or later, someone will strike gold: our Organisational relationship with learning is being mined from many different directions, and one assumes that at some point we will hit the paydirt.

What are these directions?

We are evolving the TYPE of learning we do: with a general shift away from the CODIFIED, OWNED, and CONTROLLED, towards the CO-CREATED, DISTRIBUTED and EVOLUTIONARY model. This brings with it questions of VALIDITY, OWNERSHIP, and UNIVERSALITY. Also ACCESSIBILITY and EQUITY of access. That’s a lot of bold type already, and we’ve barely started.

We are evolving the LOCATION and TIMING of the learning we do: in general to be DISTRIBUTED, ON DEMAND, AUGMENTED or OVERLAID, CONTEXTUAL to time, space, and application, and even GEOFENCED or GEO–CONTEXTUAL according to where you are, what you are doing, and who you are with.

We are shifting to a model of INSIGHT that is partly learner generated, and partly AI or MACHINE led: SIFTING, PRIORITISING, CONTEXTUALISING and SHARING increasingly moderated by, or indeed initiated by the TECHNOLOGY. This shift not only alters the mechanisms of INSIGHT, but also (potentially) ACCELERATES both LEARNING and CHANGE – an understanding of how we learn indicates that learning is not a smooth and linear process, but perhaps one more of FRACTURE and REVELATION at times. There are also significant impacts of this human – computer relationship with regards to RESILIENCE, DECISION MAKING and the moderation of FAILURE, possibly through PHASED COLLAPSE or moderated comms.

We are supposedly moving to a model of EVIDENCE BASED design, and DATA INFORMED response, although quality, application, and capability in this emergent space are themselves variable.

At best, these (and other) shifts are evolving (or torturing) or maps of the landscape of learning so far that we may be forced, before long, to reclassify or categorise it.

Perhaps Learning shifts into a more dynamic and cultural space, more so than an abstract and disaggregated one?

Or arguably learning becomes more an output of PERFORMANCE, or an inherently bonded aspect of it.

Certainly much of our vocabulary of learning is outdated, many of our structures of Organisational learning are outdated, and indeed perhaps our capabilities in the design and delivery, support and measurement of learning are, themselves, outdated.

That would make sense: in my own work i would consider that we are at an evolutionary stage of significant change: some systems will be repurposed, whilst others will remain vestigial. Redundant but still present. What matter most at this stage is not success, but motion: experimentation and a comfort with our own uncertainty as we learn.