Thinking differently about learning
A pensive monkey thinking and scratching his head via Creative Commons
My colleague Mairi-Anne MacDonald recently shared an interesting paper with me on “The Impact of Conceptualisations of Learning on Practice.” I can’t say that the title filled me with joy, but it was a really helpful piece that got me thinking about how we see learning within public services.
I’ve reflected before on traditional training as the status quo of learning. It places responsibility for learning in the hands of an expert trainer, and it sees participants as empty vessels waiting to be filled with knowledge. Not exactly strengths-based then. This paper describes this approach as a “transfer/acquisition metaphor, where knowledge is transferred from authoritative sources to those with gaps in their knowledge.”
What might a different approach look like?
The alternative metaphor strikes a somewhat different note:
“The construction metaphor of learning sees learning as the construction of meaning within learners’ individual minds, as well as collaborative and collective constructions.”
This strikes a chord with me because relationships are key to knowledge sharing. It’s so important when we’re looking to embed learning from research into practice (as outlined in this research and this Transforming Evidence piece), and also from learning events and opportunities too.
Complexity
I’m also really interested in how these two schools of thought fit around complexity. The paper suggests that “someone with a transfer/acquisition metaphor of learning would tend to also have a rationalist, scientist, objectivist*, and empiricist worldview.” This feels like a very binary way of seeing the world, that doesn’t fit with the reality of the nuance of people’s lives. Instead the exploration and critial analysis of the construction metaphor gives scope for learning both within the context of an event and beyond.
Is it useful to debate the meaning of a metaphor?
I think it is helpful to interrogate our use of language and our mental models. For example, I feel the need to critique training because it implies that people are tabula rasa waiting for knowledge to be imparted, which many people equate with learning in the sector. But I also feel that learning is central to good public services. If we’re not learning to understand what good lives look like to people, then we stand little chance of being able to support people effectively. Assuming absolute and authoritative positions of knowledge places us in an old-school position of patriarchal public service. To be fit for purpose, we need to recognise that we are working with and building on people’s strengths, knowledge and expertise.
*I read Ayn Rand so you don’t have to. I’d review that experience, but loads of people have critiqued her writing better than I could. This is a good start in case you’re interested!