Knowledge + Learning = Performance

According to Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner (2007), the three main goals of self-directed learning are “(1) to enhance the ability of adult learners to be self-directed in their learning, (2) to foster transformational learning as central to self-directed learning, and (3) to promote emancipatory learning and social action as an integral part of self-directed learning” (p. 107). The first goal relates to helping learners develop the learning and meta-learning skills related to “learning how to learn.” The second goal adds consideration of the change that occurs internally for the learning as a result of critical reflection upon one’s learning. The third goal adopts a larger perspective on self-directed learning, with inclusion of critical analysis of the context in which the learning takes place as well as its impact.

The most important part of the second goal of self-directed learning is the inclusion of critical reflection, for it is through critical reflection that connections are made (e.g., Spears’s learning clusters) and new knowledge is created. In fact, providing the opportunity for reflection is a characteristic often cited as critical to learning organizations and the creation of individual and organizational knowledge (Kline & Saunders, 1998; Marsick & Watkins, 1999; Senge, 2006). Brookfield (1995) also supports this view, stating that “developing critical reflection is probably the idea of the decade for many adult educators who have long been searching for a form and process of learning that could be claimed to be distinctively adult” (p. 3).

Some may question whether it is the "critical" part of critical reflection that makes it adult. The idea of critical thought processes was something that, personally, I found myself struggling with in the early months of my doctoral studies. Growing up female in a middle-class American family, I was told that to be critical was to be impolite. Through my studies now as an adult in my early forties with the benefit of greater life and professional experience, I have been able to see that being critical can be done very respectfully and is, in fact, a much preferred way to approach the considerations of much any topic we are confronted with as scholars, professionals, and adults. Being critical does not have to mean that you are minimizing someone else’s points. Rather, it means that you ask carefully-considered questions such as those proposed by Browne and Keeley (2004):

- What are the issues and the conclusions?

- What are the reasons?

- Which words or phrases are ambiguous?

- What are the value conflicts and assumptions?

- Are there any fallacies in the reasoning?

- How good is the evidence?

- Are there rival causes?

- Are the statistics deceptive?

- What reasonable conclusions are possible? (p. 13)

Critical thinking and reflection also mean that one is not simply accepting the status quo, nor taking an absolute agree-or-disagree stance. Critical thinking and reflection means being comfortable with the ambiguity of “truth” and what’s “right”—and being open to many definitions. And why embrace critical thinking and reflection? As Brown and Keeley (2004) so aptly argue, “...critical thinking begins with a desire to improve what we think. The point of [the questions you ask is to] help [you] to have a deeper understanding or appreciation of what is being said” (p. 3).

Returning to the subject of self-directed learning, Brookfield (as cited in Merriam et al., 2007) also argues that “having learners exercise control over all educational decisions needs to be a consistent element of self-directed learning” (p. 109). Brookfield (1993) also argues that this “self-direction can be interpreted as part of a cultural tradition that emphasizes the individual's standing against repressive interests.” Furthermore, “self-directed learning should be interpreted as part of a cultural tradition emphasizing individuals' standing against oppression. This involves recognizing that (1) political issues of control and power are at its heart and (2) authentic practice of self-directedness requires certain political conditions (access to resources)” (SK, n.d.). Thus together, the practices of reflection and learner control as applied to self-directed learning ensure that the learner questions the status quo and forms educated conclusions based on a critical thought process.

References

Brookfield, S. (1993). Self-directed learning, political clarity, and the critical practice of adult education [Abstract]. Adult Education Quarterly, 43(4), 227-242.

Brookfield, S. (1995). Adult learning: An overview. In A. Tuinjman (ed.) (1995). International Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford, Pergamon Press. (Forthcoming). Retrieved February 6, 2008 from http://www.fsu.edu/~elps/ae/download/ade5385/Brookfield.pdf

Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S. M. (2004). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Person Prentice Hall.

Kline, P. & Saunders, B. (1998). Ten steps to a learning organization (2nd ed.). Salt Lake City, UT: Great River Books.

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1999). Facilitating learning organizations. Brookfield, VT: Gower.

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

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (Rev. ed.). New York: Doubleday.

SK. (n.d.). Brookfield’s Self-directed learning, political clarity, and the critical practice of adult education. In ERIC. Retrieved February 6, 2008 from http://eric.ed.gov

- Robin

Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.perfassocinc.com

In the past decade, more and more researchers and practitioners have begun to acknowledge the potential synergies and interrelationships between knowledge and learning. This is particularly evident in the convergence of the concepts of the learning organization (LO) and knowledge management (KM). Senge (1990/2006) first introduced the concept of the learning organization as a set of core learning capabilities that enable an organization to innovate (i.e., to create new knowledge) and create sustainable advantage. In 1999, Senge shared that he saw KM addressing “the same critical issues [that the Society of Organizational Learning] members have been struggling with—the sustainable creation, transfer, and dissipation of organizational knowledge” (Karlenzig as cited in McElroy, 2003). In studying the areas of organizational forgetting, organizational memory, and how knowledge transfer is a key to creating organizational learning, Argote (2005/1999) posits that “patterns of knowledge creation, retention, and transfer contribute to differences in the rates at which organizations learn” (p. 203). Loermans (2002) defines the relationship between KM and LO by stating that the LO focuses on the learning process and generating new knowledge while KM “takes the output from the LO, manages it and ensures that an appropriate environment to perpetuate the generation and management of knowledge capital is being properly maintained” (p. 292). Loermans (2002) also cites the research of Brown and Woodland, Wikstrom and Norman, and Allee, observing that organizational learning claims “that learning is the process of acquiring knowledge” while KM claims “that each aspect of knowledge has a corresponding learning activity that supports it” (p. 290). McElroy (2003) argues that “second-generation KM [is] a management discipline that focuses on enhancing organizational learning…[and that] KM is an implementation strategy for organizational learning” (p. 19). Mason (2005) also argues that “learning and knowledge have a symbiotic relationship; they depend upon each other” (p. 321).

So what are the implications of this convergence between knowledge and learning for practitioners? Loermans (2002) recommends that “a corporate architecture [be created] to facilitate learning at the organization level and to create knowledge sharing and dissemination mechanisms across the organization” (p. 290). Mason (2005) recommends considering the use of e-learning as important “knowledge scaffolding” and that “much of the infrastructure development that supports e-learning [is] convergent with systems developed to support knowledge management” (p. 321) —for example, enterprise knowledge portals and Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS). Furthermore, while “content may have been king at the peak of the dot-com boom, [we now know] that context will always shape its usage” (Mason, 2005, p. 322)—and learning is where context and meaning are formed. In addition, any KM, OL, and e-learning initiative must be “designed with...[an] understanding of [how to] sustain online culture…[and an] appreciation that “e” also stands for engagement” (Mason, 2005, p. 322). Thus people, cultural, and infrastructure considerations must always come first for the success of any KM, OL, and e-learning initiative.

In closing, practitioners should consider this final piece of advice from Loermans (2002):

If the discipline of KM operates in such a way as to improve an organization’s learning capability, it therefore improves the capacity for the organization to generate new knowledge and thus systematically expand the knowledge base of the organization. For this cycle to operate effectively, organizational learning and knowledge generation need to be fully integrated into every mission critical business process that the organization is involved in. This is more a cultural than a technological challenge. (p. 292) [Therefore], organizations should focus on the total inter-organization learning process (i.e., the creation of new corporate knowledge from the total environment within which the organization operates) and the nurturing of the cultural environment that supports it and ensures its continuing development. (p. 293)

References

Argote, L. (2005/1999). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. New York: Springer.

Loermans, J. (2002). Synergizing the learning organization and knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(3), 285-294.

Mason, J. (2005). From e-learning to e-knowledge. In M. Rao (Ed.), Knowledge management tools and techniques (pp. 320-328). Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

McElroy, M. (2003). The new knowledge management. Burlington, MA: Butterworht-Heinemann.

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

- Robin

Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.perfassocinc.com