I've been a mostly silent member of LO for several months now and have
gotten valuable insights from many postings. One of the things I find
distracting is the redefinition of words that have definitions in the
dictionary, for example, the lengthy debate about the meaning of the word
"manipulation", which I will not get into. Therefore I agree with Robert
Bacal, L016680, who said "if the goal is to discuss learning and to promote
learning, then it makes sense to use language as it is commonly used,
rather than inventing new words which may only be meaningful to those
inventing the terms".
What I would like to suggest is that if a different flavour is to be
associated with a word, that adjectives be used.
In response to L016677, Funk & Wagnalls defines "learning" as "knowledge
obtained by study or from instruction". Therefore, while I think Doug
Jones offers some great insights in his note, I can't agree that "Clearly,
knowledge building is a subset of learning". Doug bifurcates (thanks for
the term, At de Lange) learning into "logistical learning" and "knowledge
building". His definition of "knowledge building" I would call "knowledge
creation", but in recognition of the bifurcation, I would call it
"creational learning", which is learning through the creation of new
knowledge, as opposed to learning from assimilating existing knowledge.
With these definitions of logistical and creational learning, I therefore
disagree that the two are inseparable. Surely it is possible to simply
transfer knowledge without creating new knowledge? I suspect that the two
often go together, since I often get new insights while I am explaining
something I (think I) already know.
I think the basic issue is what is being called "knowledge management", or
organizational learning. JIT Learning I see as an aspect of logistical
learning, in that logistical learning can be delivered either JIT or as
Doug describes it, in "batch" (is assume this means scheduled classes).
There has been quite a bit of discussion about whether an organization can
learn. Of course it can't in a literal sense, but it is useful to talk
metaphorically about organizational learning. I think that organizational
knowledge is the knowledge effectively available through the people (with
the systems that support them) that constitute the organization. The word
"effectively" is important. By it I mean that there is twice as much
effective knowledge if two people hold the same body of knowledge as
compared to one. Organizational learning occurs when the total knowledge
of its people increases. Total knowledge can increase in two ways, by
logistical learning - more people acquiring greater portions of the body of
knowledge held by the organization, and by creational learning - the
expansion of the body of knowledge held by the organization.
The degree to which an organization successfully manages its knowledge is
the degree to which it is able to increase its effective knowledge by both
logistical learning and creational learning. It needs the former for
profitability, and the latter to endure over time.
The reason that JIT learning is generally more effective than batch
learning is that JIT knowledge is delivered when it can be used and
therefore retained (for me, knowledge acquired by short duration courses
has a half life of two weeks). Therefore, the challenge for organizations
is to be able to deliver JIT learning. The "PULL" mechanisms mentioned by
Doug seem to be just the ticket.
An implication of establishing "PULL" mechanisms is: who determines content
and how the information is indexed for retrieval? I think intranet
managers will start realizing that this is a critical role for success.
Does this sound like anybody you might have come across? I think the
future is going to get brighter for librarians!
Patrick Sue
Toronto, Canada
psue@inforamp.net
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>