'Learning'​: what are you talking about?
Image: Ben Iwara

'Learning': what are you talking about?

‘Learning’ is the most terribly confused and conflicted term. It has been so utterly subverted by education, that it’s near impossible to use it meaningfully any more.

It has helped me, personally, to identify three distinct types of activity sometimes described as 'learning':

Education: this is a set of rituals in which people are expected to memorise information (sometimes described as ‘learning objectives') in order to pass a test. Whilst humans are able to do this given sufficient incentive, it is terribly inefficient process (they forget almost all of it quickly) and it rarely has any impact on behaviour. It is not ‘learning’ in any meaningful sense and doesn’t change people. Sadly, almost all of the activity we describe today as ‘learning’ is, on closer inspection ‘education’. However, the activity has become bureaucratised on a monstrous scale and is proving hard to stamp out.

Learning Elimination: books and digital devices have provided humans with the ability to externalise knowledge and guidance, effectively doing the opposite to education and presenting us with the opportunity to improve performance whilst reducing learning.

When we talk about ‘performance consulting’ or ‘point-of-need support’, our aim should be to reduce learning as much as possible in order to improve performance.

Often, the aim of organisational L&D is ultimately to improve performance so – paradoxically – the main job of L&D teams is increasingly to reduce the need to learn (as more opportunities to externalise knowledge - for example using mobile devices - become available). Learning elimination is often corrupted by education where, for example, someone intending to create 'useful stuff' ends up creating educational modules instead.

People Change: this is the only true sense of learning and comprises, in essence, experience design. People are changed by their reactions to the world, and by experiences that have some affective consequence. Often (though not exclusively) this means ‘learning by doing’ since what we do ourselves typically has the greatest personal impact (although watching another person make a terrible mistake can also be impactful).

If we wish to change people therefore, our work is to design the kinds of experiences that will do that – in practice this is often challenges.

Today, almost everything we describe as 'learning' is in fact 'education'. We could easily get a lot better at doing learning elimination, and it would be nice to see people start doing 'people change' well - i.e. in a more scientific, less 'magical' fashion.

Image: Ben Iwara

Rachael Adams

✨Putting the human in learning✨

2mo

Susi Hamilton thought you’d find this interesting

Simona Petrescu

Passionate about learning

4y

I wouldn't be so categorical, Nick. Learning is after all, just like faith, a highly personal experience, which cannot be triggered, but can and will happen, or may be a spin-off, or a cumulative result, of education as well as of what you call "learning elimination". We can definitely say that education does not equal learning, but I don't think we can turn this statement round and claim that learning never happens within education. Some people, or some of the times, we do learn, no matter whether in school, by resorting to Help resources, or by daily encounters. Real learning cannot be achieved programmatically, because of its highly internalized nature, and I think that's what you actually mean. Or maybe not :)...

Christian Böhler

Coachender und agiler Zimmermann, unterstützt Leistungsfähigkeit in der VUCA-Welt

4y

This discussion raises a changed or changing role of L&D functions. Last October I wrote an article titled DisruptHR: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/christianboehler_the-end-of-the-known-personnel-development-activity-6620645686985666560-aJ_8 It's just theory. But I'm convinced that changing a system implies to disrupt or turn it bottom-up. #Corona is underlying my assumption. If it's cold, I'd wear warmer clothes. If I'm hungry, I'll probably eat something. If I have a gap, I'd try to close it and thereby learn. Seldom one is learning something just because one want to learn something. Purpose is key. HR's role in it is just providing an environment in which employees are able to perform, to conclude, to change and to make the next step. Looking forward to your thoughts. 😊

Like
Reply
Fabio Rosas

Global Operations Manager at Welltec | Board Member at SPE Copenhagen | talks about: Energy Market . Business Strategy . Project Management

4y

Great questions brought to our minds. Recently I wrote a quick article talking about this big moment of change we are living in. Hope you enjoy and thanks for sharing: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sustainability-secret-resiliency-f%C3%A1bio-rosas-gutterres

Like
Reply
Wolfgang Hanfstein

Sozialwissenschaftler, Autor

4y

Wieder guter Input: Mit einer Einschränkung: "we change people". Ich denke, es ist weder Aufgabe von HR noch von Führungskräften, Leute zu "changen". Das müssen sie selbst tun und wollen. Es kann nur darum gehen, die Möglichkeiten für diesen Change zur Verfügung zu stellen. (Das ist auch die Hybris bei "transformativer Führung". )

Like
Reply

To view or add a comment, sign in

Insights from the community

Others also viewed

Explore topics