In my last post on Collaborative Learning, I pondered synergies among practice areas that had traditionally been hallmarks for how we learn. Public Education quickly came to mind. So did Higher Learning. But what about the commercial space? Organizational Development (OD) and Knowledge Management (KM) have staked claims to learning too. And don’t all entrepreneurs, especially in social change spaces, seek to discover ‘what is possible’?
I’ve been in at least 4 Twitter chats on this topic since that original post in December, and had a highly energized conversation every time. We’ve answered the question at a high-level: YES, there should be synergies across practices. The many comments on the previous post supported this, and provided numerous sources and examples from personal experience. Thank you Blake Melnick, Jon Husband, Bas Reus and Kira Campo for those contributions.
There’s something to be said about how we, as learners, can learn differently (and perhaps better) in groups with other people, as opposed to learning alone. A solo effort might involve a book, a teacher, or a computer screen, but in all cases, the learner is generally on their own to discern the material, with only an instructor and visual content (words, pictures) to guide their learning.
Collaborative learning means learning in groups or teams, deriving deeper insights from discussion, alternative perspectives, and open dialog.
Call it social learning if you like. That’s an interesting frame all it’s own, with important implications for social media, many of them covered in an excellent book, The New Social Learning by Tony Bingham and Marcia Conner. In fact, by reading this blog post, you and I are using social media to connect the dots on this thinking, with the potential of further engaging in collaborative research ..
But as you will see in our framework, many more factors will influence our success, extending beyond social technology. Areas like intention, culture, and our ability to think deeply in a variety of modes come into view. We’re not just talking left-brain vs. right-brain here (though that enters in .. see Iain McGilchrist on RSA for a fascinating update). We’re talking about critical thinking, empirical thinking, and design thinking, 21st Century frames from the 3 high-order Learning Dimensions in Bloom/Anderson.
In our 2/18 #CDNA chat, the group weighed-in in favor of a “spiral” path, not following rows or columns. Is this possible? How would be able to keep our bearings? We’ll be discussing it at hashtag #CDNA on 2/25 at 8pET. Watch for the transcript.
To get you thinking, the image at left is an excerpt from ECODNA, a reference framework which evolved via Twitter chat in October 2009, part of the genesis of #ECOSYS.
I hope and believe we can bring new energy on “learning to learn” in every direction possible .. the workplace, the classroom, and our daily lives. We solve problems every day. That means we tap our ability to summon the right solution, or to call up the right set of factors to determine a new solution. Are we successful? Sometimes. But I contend our ability to make sense of the 21st Century is going to be ever more difficult. The problems are more complex and intertwined. We will need both the rigor and depth that comes with “learning to learn” at a new level.
The commercial and education implications are significant.
No high stakes testing or forced curricula in sight, folks. We’re using collaboration to get to the next level of results. Would love your thoughts as comments here or online using Twitter. For a deeper dialog, stop by our new Collaborative Learning community at G+.
Don’t look now. We’re learning to learn as we speak.