This is a good article and should be read regardless of what I may have to say about it, but for me what's interesting is that it shines a light on where I would disagree most (I think) with Julian Stodd (and no doubt many others who have a similar perspective), and that is with respect to the role of stories in learning, "a view that some learning is fully formal (a story told to us by the Organisation), some is fully social (stories constructed and held in our tribal communities), and some may land in the middle space – essentially tribal in origin (so grounded, authentic, lived, experiential, owned), but accessible globally (if we earn the right)." To be sure, this is an oversimplification. But it seems to me the only sense in which learning is a 'story' is the sense in which human experience is linear; we can't get outside the constraints of time. But if we're going to use simple metaphors for learning, then it's much more like a map than a story. "Social Learning," as Stodd says, "is essentially dialogue based," but learning properly so-called, importantly, is not.
Today: 0 Total: 1401 [Direct link] [Share]
