Structural changes in learning | Julian Stdd learning blog

It is clear that there is a lot of disruption in “industry” learningpartly motivated by new technologies, and partly by our understanding of the way we learn.

The technological part offers significant changes, some tactics, some more holistic. At the simplest level, technology allows learning to come to people, as opposed to people traveling to learning, but more importantly, this contextualizes learning in our “performance” spaces. The learning infrastructure technologies allow a broader distribution, and both the configuration and the holding of files, although they have also encouraged the proliferation of dogma and hyperbole, in particular around “micro” learning and personalization. All this, although mainly in paradigms inherited from what is “taught” and how we “learn”.

In addition to these relatively simple ideas are broader questions, such as our advanced relationship with awarenessThe ways in which we have the capacity, the notion and nature of the skills, and the idea of ​​”meaning” and how we create it. We quickly passed organizations as owners and knowledge of knowledge, to existing organizations who have or have almost no unique knowledge. And we have left purely formal mechanisms of generation and validation of knowledge, in favor of concepts still evolving from social co-creation and validation.

And finally, we have emerging ideas and impacts, such as the impact of the Genai on “expertise” (of which we have written an entire chapter in “engines of engagement”), notions of social metacognition (how we learn together), emergence (how sparkles fly) and collective capacity. I will include in this the passage of an economy of knowledge in an ecosystem of “meaning”, where the collection mechanisms, the creation of Sénes and the prototyping, come in the foreground.

Superposition or overcoming, all of this is the Genai, especially for the way it is a question of undressing the “skills” of “crafts”, and quickly merchanting aspects of higher order and associated artifacts. The latter change radically – perhaps fatally – many of our conceptions of what leadership is and how organizations are effective.

To my surprise, I found myself attracted by the update Social learning guide (itself an evolution of my original book “learning methodology”). I say “surprise”, because I thought my job on the next ‘Learning science“ The book would scratch this itch, but I find instead that I am more and more interested in rebalancing the model “social learning scaffold” in accordance with my renewed concentration on the mechanisms of “meaning”, and social metacognition, as well as the impacts of emerging generating technologies, as well as the wider context described above.

I'll see. I may want to refine the model, or I can be excited enough to update the book. In any event, we must navigate a basic tension with care: between what we observe (radical experimentation in width, in our communities) and what we are given (software systems updated in inherited conceptions). We don't need to be brilliant to sail in this change, just brilliant enough to recognize that we need it.

The answer will not be given to us, or even sold to us: we will most likely have to understand the new landscape, understand what is always in motion and create our own answer, then be ready to change it almost immediately.