Knowledge + Learning = Performance

Epistemology is defined as “the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity” (epistemology, n.d.). In the exploration of epistemology, many philosophers have attempted to define what knowledge is, how it is acquired, and what is truth. My next three posts will be a synthesis of what these many philosophers have taught us over the ages, resulting in the formation of five guiding principles that can be applied to the modern application of learning and knowledge management.

Guiding Principle 1: Knowledge involves aspects of both the mind (thinking) and the body (senses and experience)

In the early days of epistemology, there was a strong separation between mind and body. Plato and Descartes believed that knowledge was of the mind. Plato (360BC/1968) argued that knowledge is innate and need only be brought forth. Descartes (1644) coined the phrase “cogito, ergo sum”—I think, therefore I am—and argued our senses should not be trusted, and that thought proceeds and is more certain and clearer than the body. On the other hand, Aristotle and Locke believed that knowledge focuses on the body and what is learned through our senses and experience. Aristotle (350BC/1993) argued that knowledge is created via mental processes based on what our senses perceive of the world around us. Locke (1689) developed the concept of the mind as a “tabula rasa” (white paper or blank tablet) upon which experience writes.

As we move into the 18th century through the mid-20th century, a separation between mind and body was still evident, yet some synthesis of the two began. Rousseau (1762/1957), James (1907), and Dewey (1938/1998) emphasized experience and the senses. On the other hand, Kant (1803/1960) argued that we need both sense and understanding. He believed that the body and senses help form self-sufficiency, strength, skill, quickness, self-confidence, discipline, and individuality plus enable one to become a contributing or working member of society. At the same time, Kant believed that the mind helps with the development of understanding, judgment, reason, and morality.

Looking now to the turn of the last century, a more holistic view of knowledge emerged. Schon argued for both ‘knowledge-in-action’ and ‘reflection-in-action’ (1987, pp. 23-29). Senge introduced the concept of systems thinking which “integrates [his five] disciplines [for learning] into a coherent body of theory and practice” (2006, p. 12). Nonaka and Takeuchi encouraged Western companies to embrace more holistic concepts of knowledge characterized in the Japanese intellectual tradition that emphasizes “the ‘whole personality’… [where] knowledge means wisdom that is acquired from the perspective of the entire personality… [resulting in a] valuing of personal and physical experience over indirect, intellectual abstraction” (1995, p. 29). They further argued that tacit knowledge in particular involves both physical skills (or ‘know-how’) as well as a cognitive aspect that “reflects our image of reality (what is) and our vision for the future (what ought to be)” (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 8).

Guiding Principle 2: Knowledge is acquired through a combination of methods

The ancient philosophers provided many enduring truisms related to understanding how knowledge is acquired. For example, Plato (360BC/1968) introduced his sun metaphor—where the light of good helps us to see the ideas of the mental world—which is the basis of the concepts we hear today with such words and phrases as "enlightenment," "seeing the light," "bright ideas," and "dawning on us.”

Many philosophers believed that knowledge was acquired through the senses. Both Aristotle and Locke contended that one can acquire new knowledge only through the senses and accumulating those experiences to form knowledge and skill. For them, knowledge is inductive by nature. Aristotle (350BC/1993), who laid the foundation for the scientific method, argued that we use our sensory perception to take in particulars and then use reasoning powers to understand what our senses perceived. Locke (1689) argued that the only knowledge humans can have is based on experience (‘a posteriori’). In Book I of Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he argued against innate knowledge and the Cartesian split between mind and body. In Book II, Locke presented his theory of knowledge being one where all knowledge is acquired through either our senses or from reflecting on our experiences in the physical world. Interestingly, Locke still did support the Cartesian Dualism of the mind/body split; even though the mind gathers data from the sensory world, Locke argued that knowledge is an intellectual event in a world separate from the physical one. In the 18th century, Rousseau offered a four-step approach for acquiring knowledge where we “let the senses be the only guide for the first workings of reason” (1762/1957, p. 131). He argued that knowledge should be acquired first through the senses, observation, and experience; second, gradually gain the ability to focus on one thing for a long time (as driven by the learners’ interest—not an external mandate); third, apply these to ‘an honest trade’ (ensuring that one does not acquire the prejudices of one’s social and/or economic position); and then, finally, develop judgment and reasoning.

Many philosophers also believed that knowledge is acquired through the mind. Plato and Descartes were proponents of knowledge being acquired through the intellect alone—they both believed that we are born with innate ‘a priori’ knowledge and can deduce truths through mental reasoning. Proponents of rationalist philosophy, they believed that the intellect could be used to acquire knowledge about everything there is to know—that one merely needs to apply adequate intellectual reflection and study to a subject in order to deduce the truth. Plato (360BC/1968) argued that ideas are perfect, eternal, and found in the soul and that knowledge is innate and needs only be brought forth. Descartes (1644) argued that reason alone determines knowledge and this can be done independently of the senses. He further asserted that since conscious sense experience can be the cause of illusions, all sense experience should be doubted. Instead, Descartes argues, the thinking mind can operate under its own rules of logic to come to conclusions about that ‘other world’—the physical world.
More recently, the belief has emerged that knowledge is acquired through multiple means. Kant (1803/1960) argued that two kinds of judgment are needed—a priori (deductive reasoning) and a posteriori (inductive reasoning). Echoing Kant’s belief that “no mental faculty is to be cultivated by itself, but always in relation to others” (1907, p. 71), James also taught that we acquire new beliefs and ideas through the linking or ‘grafting’ of new knowledge onto previous.

As new knowledge is acquired it is done so in relation to what we already know, and in forming these new truths our old ideas and beliefs are forever changed (James, 1907, p. 24). Furthermore, Nonaka and Takeuchi have cautioned Western managers to let go of knowledge acquisition as something that occurs through books and classrooms, but rather through a “less formal and systematic side of knowledge… [that focuses] on highly subjective insights, intuitions, and hunches that are gained through the use of metaphors, picture, or experiences” (1995, p. 11).

To be continued...

- Robin
Performance Associates, Inc.

Let's continue our exploration of five guiding principles of knowledge by exploring principles 3 and 4.

Guiding Principle 3: Truth is subjective

Throughout the study of epistemology, there is one concept that the philosophers have debated heatedly—and that is the concept of truth. Some—like Descartes (1644)—strove for certainty in truth, while others took a more accommodating stance.

Some philosophers’ beliefs of truth were characterized by absolutes. Plato (360BC/1968) asserted that only ideas are perfect, eternal, and permanent—unlike all things in the physical world that always become corrupted and die. Descartes (1644) argued that knowledge of eternal truths can be attained by reason alone. He asserted that truths are attained by reason and are broken down into elements that intuition can grasp through a purely deductive process resulting in clear truths about reality. Descartes also argued that everything we know is either a thing, an affection of a thing, or an eternal truth (1644, p. XLVIII). Furthermore, he believed that we can conceive of physical substance without the actual object, but the opposite is not true—thus the truth lies only in the mind (Descartes, 1644, p. LIII). And relatively recently, Skinner (1971) argued that truth can be found only in directly observable behaviors.

Fortunately these rigid definitions have yielded to a more accommodating and subjective view of truth. Locke believed that in "searches after truth...the very pursuit makes a great part of the pleasure. Every step the mind takes in its progress towards knowledge makes some discovery, which is not only new, but the best too, for the time at least” (1689, p. 1). James presented his view of instrumental truth, or “the view that truth in our ideas means their power to ‘work’” (1907, p. 43). He also supported the subjectivity of truth in citing the ideas of Schiller and Dewey who argued that “…ideas become true just in so far as they help us to get into satisfactory relation with other parts of our experience” (James, 1907, p. 23). Women’s perspective on knowing, as described by Belenky, Goldberger, Clinchy, and Tarule (1986), presented the concept of subjective knowledge which encourages the development of one’s instinct and intuition as a means of being able to define one’s own truth. “Truth, for subjective knowers, is an intuitive reaction [where one is] not...part of the process, as constructor of truth, but as conduit through which truth emerges” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 69). Subjective knowledge means less reliance on restrictive dualistic thinking of absolutes, and embraces what the authors call “connected knowing, an orientation toward understanding and truth that emphasizes not autonomy and independence of judgment, but a joining of minds” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 55). Nonaka and Takeuchi asserted that “organizational intention provides the most important criterion for judging the truthfulness of a given piece of knowledge…intention is often expressed by organizational standards or visions that can be used to evaluate and justify the created knowledge” (1995, p. 74). Drucker also took an accommodating view of truth, stating “All knowledges are equally valuable; all knowledges, in the words of the great medieval saint and philosopher St. Bonaventura, lead equally to the truth” (1993, p. 218).

Guiding Principle 4: Learning is most effective when it involves elements of both practice/doing and theory/thinking

Through their study of knowledge, the epistemological philosophers also contributed their beliefs about how learning can be most effective—and many argued for including elements of both practice/doing and theory/thinking. Descartes (1644) argued for steps to educate oneself that included both intellectual pursuits and practice as a means to apply morals and logic. Kant (1803/1960) argued for methods designed to train both the mind and the body. He believed the mind should be trained (1) through both physical and moral training, (2) with an eye to the end goal—is it for work (scholastic culture) or play (free culture); (3) to maximize memory skills early and cultivate understanding; and (4) with rules alongside application and examples. Kant also believed that the body should be trained through (1) active doing to combine skill and senses; (2) developing a photographic memory (to be used in nature as well as in books and music); and (3) using childhood games to prepare children for the future and condition them to remain busy and work toward an end goal (1803/1960). Rousseau (1762/1957) argued for learning through experience first and then proceeding to mental reasoning. He believed that it is best to teach through doing whenever possible, and only fall back upon words when doing is out of the question. Rousseau also emphasized the need for experienced-based self-directed learning stating:

Let the senses be the only guide for the first workings of reason… The child who reads ceases to think, he only reads. He is acquiring words not knowledge. [Rather] teach the scholar to observe the phenomena of nature… Put the problems before him and let him solve them himself. Let him know nothing because you have told him, but because he has learnt it for himself. (1762/1957, p. 131)

Late 20th century philosophers continued to support the idea of effective learning needing both practice/doing and thinking/theory. Rogers encouraged us to remember that learning is both intellectual and behavioral by stating, “It is not simply an intellectual value choice, but seems to be the description of the…behaviors by which [the learner] moves exploringly toward what he wants to be” (1961, p. 176). Skinner’s operant conditioning involved the breaking down of learning into small pieces, and then providing both instruction and practice (along with reinforcement) on each piece (1971). Schon stated, “rigorous professional practitioners solve well-formed instrumental problems by applying [both] theory and technique” (1987, pp. 3-4). He argued for practical knowledge providing experience and skill in problem solving—resulting in the artistry by which the seasoned professional practices a trade. Practical knowledge also provides the opportunity to build what Schon termed ‘knowledge-in-action’—the ability to apply tacit knowledge and make wise judgments in the light of new problems and situations (1987, pp. 23-25). He also recommended the use of practical experience that can provide the opportunity for ‘reflection in action’—a series of evaluations, learnings, and modifications that are made in the midst of practice (Schon, 1987, pp. 26-29). Schwab (1971) also argued in support of the need for both theory and practical application. He asserted that theory knowledge provides the legitimacy of facts, rules, and concepts founded upon research; however, theory alone—with its inherent generality—is not enough for today’s professionals since practice requires the concrete and particular.

More recent philosophers have brought the concept of learning through both practice/doing and thinking/theory into the mainstream. Drucker himself criticized the traditional liberal arts education (typically grounded in theory), stating that this form of education “does not enable [students] to understand reality, let alone to master it” (1993, p. 213). He argued that what is needed instead is a blending of theory and doing, being able to live and work in both the worlds “of the ‘intellectual’ who focuses on words and ideas, and that of the ‘manager’ who focuses on people and work;” by having both, “there can be creativity and order, fulfillment and mission” (Drucker, 1993, p. 215). Senge introduced “the five disciplines [that] represent approaches (theories) and methods [practices] for developing three core learning capabilities: fostering aspiration, developing reflective conversation, and understanding complexity” resulting in what he calls ‘generative learning’ or enhancing the capacity to create (2006, pp. xiii, 14). Furthermore, Senge cautioned that “we learn best from experience, but [if] we never directly experience the consequences of our most important decisions” we will be limited in what can be learned from that experience (2006, p. 23). Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) also embraced a holistic method of learning, believing that learning provides an opportunity to internalize knowledge and convert from explicit to tacit knowledge. They argued that sometimes learning by doing is the best method—what they termed ‘re-experiencing’ others’ experiences—and believed that other times hearing or reading of others’ experiences works equally well (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, pp. 69-70).

To be continued...

- Robin
Performance Associates, Inc.

Let's now complete our exploration of five guiding principles of knowledge.

Guiding Principle 5: Today’s knowledge managers need to remain flexible, willing to adapt their approaches and adopt new perspectives/techniques

Epistemology has much to offer to today’s knowledge managers. It is interesting to note that the advice is varied. When considered together the solution appears to be adopting a flexible mindset and being willing to adapt one’s approach based on what epistemology teaches us from the past, as well as what we will learn in the future.

From the ancients, we gather suggestions for how to maximize knowledge acquired through the mind or body. Plato’s assertions suggest the need to provide opportunities for each individual’s innate knowledge to spring forth (360BC/1968). He argued that the relation between the knower and what is known is that the knower already possesses the knowledge or can acquire it through mental effort. Therefore, the role of the knowledge manager is to help individuals tap into what they know. Aristotle, on the other hand, argued that the knower has the ability to gather knowledge through mental processes applied to information (i.e., gathered via their senses) based on the world around us (350BC/1993). This gathered knowledge can then be used to increase what the knower knows. The implications of this for knowledge managers is to encourage searching and exploration to find explanations, applying each person’s ability to perceive and thus learn or acquire knowledge, using these perceptions to form memories which can then become experience, and maximizing this experience to create mastery of new skills or understanding. Overall, that means as a knowledge manager it would be important to utilize methods that will help individuals to explore, remember, and then amass experiences to achieve deeper levels of skill or understanding.

Even though Rousseau addressed the education of an adolescent in Emile, he brought forth many ideas that are followed today in the methods of experiential and discovery learning that work for children and adults alike. Rousseau’s gathering sea shells analogy (1762/1957, p. 134) also has a parallel to today’s Internet-based processes for gathering ideas and information. With the vast number of sources available today, ideas and information—just like Rousseau’s sea shells—run the risk of being gathered, tossed here and there as they fit our interests, and then being thrown away once we become overwhelmed. Thus conscious work must be done to ensure that ideas and information have the opportunity to be converted into knowledge before they are thrown away and lost.

Moving forward to the 20th century, Schwab (1971) asserts the need to apply multiple theories to get a more accurate understanding or assessment of a situation, and that people need to be taught how to critically consider and evaluate multiple theories. Schon’s (1987) teachings remind us that for a good learning environment in either academic or corporate institutions, the artist-practitioner needs to be able to convert his/her tacit knowledge into knowledge and activities that can be conveyed and then practiced or applied by students. The artist-practitioner also needs to share his/her experiences of theory in practice; the implication is that if the instructor lacks that experience, it would be helpful to bring in others as guest speakers to provide that and/or (in the case of adult learners) elicit students’ experience to aid in applying the theory. Belenky et al. (1986) cited the importance of trusted experts who can offer their experience and provide guidance when developing one’s subjective knowledge. “By sharing reactions and solutions ...by being given the opportunity to talk things over with a sympathetic, nonjudgmental person with similar experience... [one can see that one] has experience that may be valuable to others” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 61). This, in essence, is similar to the concept of having a mentor to whom one can turn for reassurance and advice.

Our most recent knowledge experts provide additional recommendations for how today’s knowledge manager can maximize workplace knowledge sharing and learning. Drucker recommended that knowledge managers help facilitate how to best apply knowledge to produce business results (the improvement, exploitation, and innovation that he speaks of as the three kinds of new knowledge) in order “to make knowledge productive” (1993, pp. 185, 191). Senge argued that “the organizations that will truly excel in the future will be the organizations that discover how to tap people’s commitment and capacity to learn at all levels in an organization” (2006, p. 4). He encouraged knowledge managers to maximize the increased connection and networked nature of organizations, thus leading to “new capacity for continual learning, innovation, and adaptation” (Senge, 2006, p. xvi). He recommended companies create a structure that fosters learning and continuous improvement, encouraging the five disciplines and blending them into the organization’s culture. This could be done through developing a shared vision, providing opportunities for reflection, and aligning the reward system to encourage learning and sharing. Senge also encouraged working to create a positive learning environment and being willing to invest in the long-term and not be distracted by short-term gains; thus the implication for the knowledge manager is to help organizations balance their need for short-term results with the desire for sustainability and achievement of lasting and long-term goals. Nonaka and Takeuchi argued that to maximize the knowledge creation capability of an organization, the knowledge manager needs to provide opportunities for individual knowledge to be converted into organizational knowledge “through dialogue, discussion, experience sharing, and observation” (1995, p. 13). They also encouraged the involvement of all levels to create new knowledge—from front-line employees, to middle managers, to senior management (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 15). Furthermore, they asserted the value of using a rugby team approach to teamwork. This involves having overlapping project phases taken on by a multi-disciplinary team who has shared responsibility throughout the development process and takes turns in contributing what their specialization offers to the task at hand (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986).

Summary

Reflecting on the history of epistemological thought results in five guiding principles that can be applied to the modern disciplines of learning and knowledge management:
1. Knowledge involves aspects of both the mind (thinking) and the body (senses and experience).
2. Knowledge is acquired through a combination of methods.
3. Truth is subjective.
4. Learning is most effective when it involves elements of both practice/doing and theory/thinking.
5. Today’s knowledge managers need to remain flexible, willing to adapt their approaches and adopt new perspectives/techniques.

The implication is that today’s learning and knowledge management professionals need to use these principles to respect both thinking and experience, and to provide opportunities and methods in the workplace that maximize both the mind and body. Learning and knowledge management professionals are encouraged to model openness and discourage the tendency to seek ‘the’ right answer or truth; instead, they need to encourage the consideration of multiple perspectives and ensure different viewpoints are heard. Learning management professionals in particular need to build in ample opportunities for both theory and practice during workplace learning events. And, finally, learning and knowledge management professionals themselves must be lifelong learners possessing a long-term view. They need to educate themselves and stay current on the methods for effective learning plus knowledge acquisition, sharing, and creation. They must also be able to weigh these methods in light of an organization’s culture and business goals—being willing to recommend incremental solutions that will lead to accomplishing the long-term vision. They must also be flexible, willing to change their approach as needed and help the workforce realize that learning and knowledge is everyone’s job.

References

Aristotle. (350BC/1993). Posterior analytics (J. Barnes, Trans.). London: Clarendon Press.

Belenky, M. F., Goldberger, N. R., Clinchy, B. M., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Subjective knowledge: The inner voice. In Women's way of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind, New York: Basic Books, Inc.

DeCastell, S. & Bryson, M. (1997). Querying pedagogy. In D. P. Britsman & J. L. Miller (Eds.), Radical interventions: Identity, politics, and differences in educational praxis (pp. 60-80). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Descartes, R. (1644). Principles of philosophy. Retrieved September 3, 2007 from http://www.classicallibrary.org/descartes/principles/index.htm

Dewey, J. (1938/1998). Experience and education (60th anniversary ed.). Kappa Delta Pi International Honor Society.

Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.

epistemology. (n.d.). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved November 18, 2007 from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/epistemology

James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. In The matter of belief: Selected works of William James. Retrieved October 1, 2007 from http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject

Kant, I. (1803/1960). Education. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Locke, J. (1689). Essay concerning human understanding. Retrieved September 3, 2007 from http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/locke_understanding.html

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Plato. (360BC/1968). Republic (B. Jowett, Trans.). Public Domain.

Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist's view of psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company.

Rousseau, J. J. (1762/1957). Emile (B. Foxley, Trans.). London: JM Dent and Sons.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Schwab, J. J. (1971). The practical: Arts of eclectic. In School review (pp. 493-542). Chicago: University of Chicago Press Journals.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. (Original work published 1990)

Skinner, B. F. (1971). Chapter 1: A technology of behavior. In Beyond freedom and dignity. Retrieved August 25, 2007 from http://www.xanedu.com

Skinner, B. F. (1971). Chapter 2: Freedom. In Beyond freedom and dignity. Retrieved August 25, 2007 from http://www.xanedu.com

Skinner, B. F. (1971). Chapter 3: Dignity. In Beyond freedom and dignity. Retrieved August 25, 2007 from http://www.xanedu.com

Takeuchi, H. & Nonaka, I. (1986). The new new product development game. Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb 1986(86116), 2-11.

- Robin
Performance Associates, Inc.

Indicative of a relatively new field, there has been much debate in trying to define knowledge management. In the introductory chapter of Dalkir’s book, he references many potential definitions for knowledge management, pulling from such classic knowledge management authors as Davenport and Prusak, Nonaka and Takeuchi, and Wiig. Dalkir also defines common elements found in many, but certainly not all, definitions of knowledge management. Chun Wei Choo, in the forward to Dalkir’s book, offers the definition of “knowledge management as a framework for designing an organization’s goals, structures, and processes so that the organization can use what it knows to learn and to create value for its customers and community” (2005, p. xiii). What is compelling about this definition is that it addresses the synthesizing potential of knowledge management, as well as its valued output. Implied are the people considerations; but what is missing is the technology vehicle often used to accomplish the potential and output to which Choo refers.

Unfortunately, there remains the challenge of developing a commonly accepted definition accepted by academics, practitioners, and the layperson. To develop a definition for knowledge management, considering the people, process, and technology components is a good place to start. Knowledge is captured, codified, shared, and (ideally) created by people for the benefit of people and their organizations. Knowledge management efforts can also live or die on the ability to capture people’s support, both of initial implementation efforts as well as long-term use and support. Knowledge processes can vary from highly structured content management systems with standardized taxonomies and meta-data to the creation of physical spaces that encourage the free flow of knowledge (without imposing any formal structure or process). Technology is indeed an important aspect of knowledge management, for it enables knowledge processes on behalf of the people that knowledge aids. As Davenport and Prusak state, “Technology’s most valuable role in knowledge management is extending the reach and enhancing the speed of knowledge transfer” (2000, p. 125). But technology should not be the only, nor the most important element. As they did in their classic text, Working Knowledge, Davenport and Prusak have continued to “caution against a technology-centered KM approach, but argue that a technology ingredient is a necessary ingredient for successful KM projects” (Davenport & Prusak, 2000; Rao, 2005, p. 22).

People, process, and technology—all are critical elements. None can make a knowledge management initiative successful on its own. The best-intentioned and motivated people without supporting processes or technology may have initial success, but they’ll likely not experience long-term success. Well-designed processes without people’s support or the technologies to enable them are destined to languish on paper. And the best technology will suffer from little or no use if it is not woven into the business processes and supported by all levels of people in the organization.

References

Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge management in theory and practice. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know (Paperback ed.). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. (Original work published 1998)

Rao, M. (Ed.). (2005). Knowledge management tools and techniques. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

- Robin Donnan
Performance Associates, Inc.

Webster’s defines an adult as one who is “fully developed and mature” (1989, p. 58). Knowles, Holton, and Swanson define an adult from biological, legal, social, and psychological perspectives (2005, p. 64). Being an adult can be defined chronologically (e.g., when one turns 18 or 21). It can also be defined as once one accomplishes a major life milestone such as having a child or buying one’s own home. Despite many theories and perspectives, a few common descriptors appear: individualism, responsibility, and the ability for complex reasoning. Another common element is that adulthood and adult development are not a fixed destination, but a continuous process (Knowles et al., 2005, p. 220)—a process in which the individual (ideally) continues to grow in their cognitive and compassionate capabilities.

The psychological theory of adult development I believe has the greatest effect on how adults learn is Erikson’s psychosocial development model (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2005, pp. 224-225; Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007, pp. 306-307). Like other models, Erickson’s model incorporates the concept of change or a crisis event that prompts growth from one developmental stage to the next. Where it differs from age-graded models such as Levinson’s, is that it does not assign specific (but instead predictable or approximate) ages at which all adults proceed from one stage to the next; nor does it assume that all adults will precede through all the levels. Additionally, Erikson argues “that as adults we may revisit earlier stages to resolve or re-resolve conflicts from earlier periods in different ways” (Merriam et al., 2007, p. 306). Thus, the adult continues to grow and the stages are not necessarily linear.

In considering these psychological stages of adult development and their implications for adult learning in the workplace, it can help to consider which developmental stages many workplace learners are. For example, per Erikson’s model, many workplace learners are in the middle adulthood phase where the ego development outcome is generativity, self-absorption, or stagnation. Not to be forgotten, the younger adults (ages 18-35) are in the stage where the ego development outcome is intimacy and solidarity versus isolation (Harder, 2002). What this means for adult educators is that younger adults often will prefer more team work and inclusive types of activities. At this stage, their goal is to find mutually satisfying relationships—whether those relationships are between people or between the individual and their employer. Once the adult proceeds to the middle adulthood phase (approximately 35 to 55 or 65), the adult tends “to be occupied with creative and meaningful work and with issues surrounding our family. Also, middle adulthood is when we can expect to ‘be in charge’” (Harder, 2002). For adult educators, the implication is that these adult learners need to be given a good deal of autonomy and opportunity to exert their authority. The adult educator can also provide for deeper experiences by linking the content to some greater meaning, whether for them individually or for the organization. Adult educators must also consider the “teachable moment” of which Havighurst refers (Knowles et al., 2005, p. 223; Merriam et al., 2007, p. 308). Often that teachable moment occurs naturally: due to a promotion, change in job responsibilities, or an internally-motivated developmental ‘life task’ designed to better oneself for either personal or societal gain. When the teachable moment does not occur naturally, adult educators need to consider creating the need and thus trigger a teachable moment. Thus, it can be helpful to start a training session by establishing the need on a very individual level, e.g., through an experiential activity that highlights the learner’s shortcomings (in a non-threatening way), and then by establishing how the training will help correct those shortcomings.

References

Harder, A.F. (2002). The developmental stages of Erik Erikson. Retrieved December 10, 2007 from http://www.learningplaceonline.com/stages/organize/Erikson.htm

Knowles, M.S., Holton, E.F., & Swanson, R.A. (2005). The Adult Learner (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. (Original work published 1973)

Merriam, S.B., Caffarella, R.S., & Baumgartner, L.M. (2007). Learning in adulthood (3rd ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. (1989). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.

- Robin
http://www.perfassocinc.com

In considering the cognitive development of adults, two major perspectives have emerged—dialectical and contextual. Dialectical thinking is characterized by discussion and reasoning to make sense of the contradictions and complexities that adults must continually deal with. It argues that “thinking in a dialectical sense allows for the acceptance of alternative truths or ways of thinking about similar phenomena that abound in everyday adult life” (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007, p. 342). Dialectical thinking is a logical thought process by which adults can reasonably take what may on the surface seem like contradictory positions. In quoting Kegan’s work on dialectical thinking, Merriam et al. (2007, p. 344) point out that one important method for resolving these contradictions and complexities is to move away from trying to “win” one’s position but rather to recognize that “the other side will not go away, [and] probably should not.”

The contextual approach considers “how social, cultural, economic, and political forces shape the development of adult thinking” (Merriam et al., 2007, p. 347). It argues that these contextual factors may be what influences an adult’s cognitive development. To take on a contextual perspective involves considering these social, cultural, economic, and political factors rather than chronological ones as guideposts for comparison. For example, in comparing adults’ beliefs on DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) orders, the contextual approach would argue for exploring a group of people who have had loved ones involved in a serious medical emergency (where resuscitation was needed) versus those who have not; it might also argue for considering those who have the economic means to sustain someone on life support versus those who do not. Contextual approaches would also argue not to evaluate behavior on its surface, but rather to consider the contextual factors that have influenced and/or may lend meaning to those behaviors. Goldberger’s examples of silence in different cultures are an excellent example of contextual factors in action (as referenced in Merriam et al., 2007, pp. 348-349).

Dialectical and contextual thinking are similar in that they both attempt to explain how adults process the complexities of decision-making and belief formation. As adults, we must come to accept “that all knowledge is incomplete and subjective. However, [we also] recognize that [we] must act despite the limits of [our] knowledge” (Merriam et al., 2007, p. 327). On the other hand, dialectical and contextual thinking differ significantly in how dialectical thinking takes a linear progression with the end result being dialectical thought process, versus contextual thinking that encourages a more cyclic and fluid process of reflection and subjectivity. Dialectical thinking weighs in strongly on logic and reasoning versus contextual thinking that favors relative, affective considerations.

Focusing on the contextual approach, epistemology teaches us that truth is subjective (Locke, 1689; James, 1907; Belenky, Goldberger, Clinchy, and Tarule (1986); Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)). So to is knowledge. As Davenport and Prusak argued in providing their definition of knowledge, “Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information” (1998/2000, p. 5). As adults, we are often faced with needing to take action even though we may not know everything we would like to about the subject. Think about when we are confronted with a new challenge at work our must act quickly to respond to a child’s or loved one’s needs. We act based on our knowledge at that given time. But, how many times does further life experience show that another course of action would have been better? Our beliefs (and our actions) are also influenced by our previous life experiences—the contextual factors of our previous social, cultural, economic, and political experiences. Think about how the knowledge and beliefs held by young adults often change in one’s middle and later adult years—that’s the contextual factors of social, cultural, economic, and political influences at play.

In reflecting upon my own learning experiences, I believe that contextual approaches have had more impact. While dialectical thinking has had a role—and certainly more so when I was younger—my tendency is to approach complex questions with “it all depends” and “what if.” Perhaps acknowledging dialectical thinking’s role is reflective of my own experience of contextual thinking—as Merriam et al. (2007, p. 349) argue, “contextual factors [can] limit or expand our ways of knowing and allow us to speak of different uses or even meanings of each of the ways of knowing.” My personal aim is to ensure that I employ these contextual considerations in an expanding, and not limiting, way.

References

Belenky, M. F., Goldberger, N. R., Clinchy, B. M., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Subjective knowledge: The inner voice. In Women's way of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind, New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know (Paperback ed.). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. (Original work published 1998)

James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. In The matter of belief: Selected works of William James. Retrieved October 1, 2007 from http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject

Locke, J. (1689). Essay concerning human understanding. Retrieved September 3, 2007 from http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/locke_understanding.html

Merriam, S.B., Caffarella, R.S., & Baumgartner, L.M. (2007). Learning in adulthood (3rd ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

- Robin
http://www.perfassocinc.com

Two contrasting learning theories that have influenced adult learning program development include Behaviorism and Constructivism. Behaviorism argues that “first, observable behavior rather than internal thought processes is the focus of study… second, the environment shapes behavior… and third, the principle of contiguity (how close in time two events must be for a bond to be formed) and reinforcement…are central to explaining the learning process” (Grippin & Peters, as cited in Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007, p. 278). In the creation of an adult learning program, Behaviorism manifests itself in the creation of behavioral objectives and measurements that are linked to rewards. Learning programs with a strong Behaviorist bent would tend to display a great deal of structure and control, be more instructor-driven, and manipulate the external environment in order to produce a series of discrete and observable behavior changes. Knowles, Holton, & Swanson (2005) would characterize Behaviorism as falling under the Elemental worldview or metaphysical system—one in which the universe is seen as a reactive system that is manipulated via a series of discrete stimulus-response combinations.

In contrast, Constructivism would be characterized as being part of the Holistic worldview or metaphysical system (Knowles et al., 2005)—one in which the universe is viewed as an active and evolving organism. Constructivism argues that “learning is a process of constructing meaning; it is how people make sense of their experience” (Merriam et al., 2007, p. 291). In the creation of an adult learning program, Constructivism manifests itself in the creation of shared meanings, use of dialogue and teamwork, collaborative and cooperative learning, situated learning, reflective practice, and communities of practice (Merriam et al., 2007). Learning programs with a strong Constructivism bent would tend to be very facilitative. The learning process would be one that is very student-centered, experiential, and focused on creating opportunities for individuals and small groups to collaborate on the creation of new knowledge and shared meaning.

In reflecting on which learning theory approach has been most evident in my experiences as a developer of adult learning programs, I would have to say that they have all made contributions. Behaviorism acts as the bookends at the beginning and end of programs with its objectives and measurements. Humanism provides purpose with a student-centered approach and the goal of self-actualization. Cognitivism is the engine using such tools and techniques as advance organizers and discovery learning. Social cognitive contributes additional techniques with activities such as fish bowls and triads where learners observe and learn from each other. Constructionist also contributes additional learning techniques with the facilitation of shared meaning, usage of dialogue, collaborative and cooperative learning, situated learning, and reflective practice. All these techniques have been very valuable, making their contributions as appropriate to different audiences’ learning needs and preferences.

Looking to the future, the learning theory approach that best represents my thinking and approach is a blend of primarily Cognitivism, Social Cognitive, and Constructivist, with an underlying foundation of Humanism. As my research focus begins to hone on the intersection of meta-learning, informal learning, and knowledge creation, I find that Cognitivism is relevant from the meta-learning/how to learn perspective. Social Cognitive provides valuable insights into informal learning processes. Constructivist aids in knowledge creation and the usage of Communities of Practice. And, Humanism continues to provide an underlying purpose of helping facilitate each individual’s goal of self-actualization.

References

Knowles, M.S., Holton, E.F., & Swanson, R.A. (2005). The Adult Learner (6th ed ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. (Original work published 1973)

Merriam, S.B., Caffarella, R.S., & Baumgartner, L.M. (2007). Learning in adulthood (3rd ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

- Robin
http://www.perfassocinc.com