« February 2005 | Main | April 2005 »

March 27, 2005

Personal learning

What is learning?

My thoughts around learning have been profoundly altered by reading Wenger, Brown & Duguid and von Krogh and focus on collective workplace practices. Have come to appreciate the role, value and importance of social learning, situated learning, learning in community and culture. That more is learned on the playing fields and in discourse with peers than from the sage on the stage. Even in very structured training situations, it is the break time conversation, the secondhand explanation from a colleague that situates the new concept, validates its importance and sanctions its legitimacy.

The key to learning is not the medium nor the message, it is the quality of the dialog with your peers that really matters

Needs assessment as learning driver - a growing unease

The traditional practice of determining information needs and competency gaps seems more and more a hollow exercise. Partly this come from my belief in distributed and situated-cognition, partly it follows from experiences in communities of practice where learning agendas are negotiated, emergent and always in flux. I equate annual learning plans with a stable environment where it is easy and effective to predict. My perception is interesting problems are wicked and there is advantage in going with the flow.

Picking CBT courses from a menu a year in advance, learning alone, like thinking alone, is not the way to go.

Toward Principles

The importance of cohorts

You may obtain information from the 'sage on the stage' a book or CBT, but you learn on the playing field, where your identity is forged, opinions are validated, values mediated, beliefs formed and assumptions are tested. Social mediation is key, and this is where cohorts help you make meaning and gain understanding. We own a social brain and apprenticeship is the natural way to learn. We need cohorts and community to build a shared repertoire of key concepts, evolve tools, craft language, gather stories and highlight sensitivities. This is where learning products reside.

Sharing meaning

Shared meaning is the difference between personal knowing and acquired understanding or social knowledge. This is the power behind language and communication. Points to the essential role of sharing critique, alignment & reflection in learning. Meaning is established through patterning, emotions play a key role. To make meaning explicit and ensure alignment, it is essential to test assumptions.

Crafting distinctions

Mike McMaster? helped me first appreciate this key knowledge practice. Creating new knowledge comes from bringing forth new worlds, from agreeing and naming subtle signs, symptoms, patterns and perceptions that enable alternative courses of action. Mostly this happens as a natural byproduct of conversations within groups and is recognized by the issues, the values, the beliefs and in the language of a community of practice. Often encoded in the 'slang' and group talk that sets the community apart. Distinctions are closely related to ontologies and to making meaning. They contribute a large measure to identity.

Deep learning, identity and dialog

Knowing is an act of participation, knowledge is more a living process that acquisition of an object, it is closely tied to who we are and emerges in dialog or through copy and practice. Lasting knowledge is knowing more than definitions, concepts and relationships, it is feeling what is right in a particular situation, requires personal engagement, passion and a community to emerge. Learning and knowledge require an ecology to thrive and evolve.

Generative learning

New insights arise at the boundaries between communities, connections and reflections, are key to synthesis and access to new ideas. The learning potential of an organization lies in maintaining a tension and a balance between core practices and active boundary processes. Identity and meaningfulness are the wellspring of creativity, sharing is a natural by-product of belonging. Learning is more about community than content

Creative abrasion, high challenge and safety

Dorothy Leonard struck a chord talking of creative abrasion. To change your mindset you need to raise the energy levels, increase the attention and focus. This is difficult to achieve in a placid conversation. Exposure to alternative assumptions and frames, some advocacy, deep dialog, strong engagement and a pure clash of ideas help to unsettle, and resettle meaning. Prior beliefs are difficult to change using classroom instruction and teaching as telling. Taken too far, increasing stress levels will reduce the learning opportunity, there is a fine balance to be maintained.

Boundary hopping and busting prototypes

The sweet spot for learning is at the boundaries of individual and community. Here you are less sure and secure , core rigidities are lower, you are flooded with new thought forms, alternative analogies and metaphors. Making connections is key and often follows trusted relationships. 

So where is learning headed?

Well there is eLearning, distance learning, web based training, learning portals, mix & match using learning objects, cohort learning, CoPs and more. Fundamental changes in learning paradigms are taking shape with constructivism on the rise, new links between learning, community and networking, exciting emergent alternatives are driving commercial education.

Links

The New Conversations about Learning

March 20, 2005

Cyclic Cmaps

Been reflecting on the role of hierarchy in knowledge construction - is a strict hierarchy too restrictive?

Looking at the richness of representations, the need to accommodate dynamism and imposed restrictions of outlines - it seems 'natural' to gravitate towards maps that support 'cross-links' and cyclic connections. Top-down directionality in a concept map robs us of important insights and fails to portray an important class of relationships. In a way, this is similar to the arc only restriction of mind mapping.

This article by Safayeni and Canas takes a deeper look at the issues and concludes both static and dynamic connectors are necessary to represent knowledge.

In many ways the arguments spiral around ways to record and portray context. For me, context is about clustering, spatial continguity and labeled arcs. Cyclic maps, we should note, quickly become very complex as the magnitude of a variable leads to different paths.

March 13, 2005

Knowledge representation

Representation is fundamental to working with knowledge in my view. I'm collecting my thoughts here.


What is representation?

Ad hoc sketches, informal qualitative models, scenario construction, concept maps, rule sets, structured text all serve as representation, reflecting the expectations and experience of their creators, they connect collaboration to future use. They serve a dual role: (a) to facilitate design and critique and (b) to serve as the holder for the product to be, they are affordances in design, which they can enhance or inhibit. Representations, clarify, extend, complete and move unique experiences and abstract ideas toward the essential and typical. Representations are material, they allow ideas and experience to have an independent existence in an externalized form, they help to capture emergent thought. Like a lump of clay, a representation is tangible, it can be pointed to, passed around, played with. It takes thought experimentation one step further, eliciting new ideas.


Mediating in collaboration

Prototyping, 'strawman' and mock-up activities allow particpants to draw on their experiences and practices more directly than abstract descriptions. Representations mediate the relation between collaborators and their products, between individuals in a group, between the group and their sponsors and between the group and their users / market. Once captured in a representation, there is a resistance that sets in as descriptions are manifest & objectified that tends to balance the affordance offered. It is the multitude of interpretations that carries the strength of a representation rather than the consensus around shared meaning.


Representation as container

Boundary objects (concept maps, ontologies, source documents) serve as a vehicle, container and carrier, for ideas. When a representation crosses boundaries, there is a loss of meaning (reification) and context, which is counter-balanced by an opportunity for new negotiations, different views and altered meaning. This points to the importance of establishing rationale & context in use or practice, an essential non-represented aspect associated with any formalism. All representations are situated in use. An important aspect of a memory object is its trajectory, i.e. the consequences of later use (see Ackerman & Halverson 1999, in BoundaryObject


Representation as mapping

Most often we look upon our representations as one for one mappings.


Rule repository

Henry Seiler, in "Managed business rules: A repository-based approach" PC AI July / August 1999 16-19, http://www.rulemachines.com/brs/whitepaper.htm talks of business and code developers interaction around business rules (a BO) and gives the roles & architecture of a rule object repository. Allows business types to participate directly in design, preserves critical documentation, enables off-line testing, helps with rapid response to business change, an IC reporting tool, separates representation and inference. see http://www.rulemachines.com


The FAQ:

This is covered in greater depth in KmFaq. It can be used to capture solutions to common problems, used for self-help and perhaps a little bit of training. There are some quite sophisticated FAQ engines for reasoning and presentation.

March 07, 2005

My KM path

To KM from expert systems via the web

My interest started in 1985 when I first heard of expert system, embarked on a journey of discovery that I clearly recognize is still very much underway.

Early years
A fascination with the power and promise of capturing expert decision principles and heuristics. Helping others take a major leap forward in their competencies. Thinking all you needed was to apply the 'best' rational thinking and you were for ever made.

Built fragile, brittle, well-bounded decision support systems. Thought I had the kernels of 'true' knowledge captured in the rules, a proven process for (measurement) & continual refinement, a representation that delivered inference and promoted learning. Boy was I ever wrong!

Middle years
A gradual awareness that knowledge was not in the rules (or the frames, cases, predicate logic or mined document repositories), something far more intractable was at work. Engaging in the web, first e-mail then bulletinboards, newsgroups and listservs, then MOOs and MUDs and morphing to web based conferencing. Discovering networking, learning about creative abrasion and the wonder of asynchronous dialog, moving from sharing the good stuff to collaboration and co-creating it.

Current journey
Slowly understanding knowledge is emergent, ephemeral, constructed and largely tacit. Looking for deep dialog that signals new connections, searching for knowledge spaces, community and collaborative writing genre. Falling into and out of exciting conversations across the internet, trying to sample the spaces where advanced knowledge practices are explored, verified, lived and improved upon. More and more aware that learning is a social activity.

http://www.voght.com/cgi-bin/pywiki?PersonalKnowledge

Thinking of knowledge as a complex, fractal ecology of ideas, memes, thoughts and assumptions.

Right now
* interested in design of living glossaries and making language distinctions
* crafting patterns that capture quality solutions and specify the application context
* excited by the diversity of blogging and distributed, syndicated, persistent conversations
* searching for social affordances that foster knowledge creation
* aware and wary of individual epistemologies that gloss over the role of relationships, downgrade the importance of social capital and downplay empathy and ethnography
* reflecting on just how slippery knowledge is and
* wondering why so few are drawn to this basic quest, see or appreciate the value of working with knowledge vs. information and why KM has lost it's allure.

So may I too ask, what exactly brings you to KM?  

From a post to KB 10/31/2003 

March 06, 2005

Social knowledge practices

What are some of the key social practices for knowledge work?
 

Thinking about the key practices for working with knowledge brought these ideas back to mind.

Social KE Practices: (facilitate orientation, communication, relationship, tone)

 

  • Collective and individual support of all a groups members
  • Appreciatively accepting diversity in individual styles
  • Fills in gaps when/where needed in order to sustain itself and for the good of the whole.
  • Sharing: deep dialog
  • Creating: inquiry, reflection, synthesis
  • Group exercises and cultural change agents to alter current midsets, expose workers to the new norms and discover new visions (collaborative concept maps, distinctions, root cause analysis)
  • Fostering trust, relationships and a learning environment
  • Encourage members to connect via 'people finders', expressions of personal learning desires, constructing personal profiles and compiling a list of their competencies, interests and desires
  • Providing and encouraging deep, appreciative, generous listening
  • Asking and encouraging quality questions
  • Reciprocity: following up on questions, engagement & commitments
  • Support and internal help for learning knowledge practices (METAPRACTICE)
  • Support offer and seek to work with "Emotional Intellegence"
  • Use ladder of inference for exploring meaning before 'attacking'
  • Advocacy vs. Inquiry balance
  • Opportunity-based reflection & thinking, not problem/blame based
  • Future-based perspetive rather than past-based

This list was brainstormed & compiled by the knowledge ecology (KE) community, 1999

Do you have something to add? - I sure would appreciate hearing
 

 

March 05, 2005

Anti-patterns, avoiding pitfalls

Often wonder which is more useful - a pattern capturing and containing the proven experience of a community, or an anti-pattern that helps to keep you clear of trouble?

Anti-patterns?
In the world of patterns and pattern language, anti-patterns get a raw deal. They are mentioned in passing, but do always get the attention they deserve. Let's dig a little deeper.  This slide show is a useful introduction and here is an example from HR.

Here is a page from the pattern wiki that helps explain the key role of anti-patterns - they alert you to traps, unforgiving situations, bad places and practices that just do not work! Anti-patterns have also been described as the opposite of a working pattern.

There is a built in bias against uncovering, documenting and propagating anti-patterns - they hurt. Communities would rather gather best practices, discuss solutions that work or experiment with new and promising directions. Revisiting lessons learned is painful, treads on toes, holds individuals and groups to the ridicule of 20/20 hindsight.

Anti-patterns mostly do not form a neat pattern language, where there are clusters, connections, sequence and levels of abstraction - they are rather a collection of things to avoid. Here is the anti-pattern catalog from the Portland Pattern Repository (please excuse the software bias).

Next time you are refractoring or sheparding patterns, think backwards, collect and document the signposts to places you do not wish to visit.