Spotted by Stephen Downes http://www.downes.ca/, Charles Jennings shares his thoughts on “the myth of knowledge transfer”
During a meeting at Cambridge University around 30 years ago I was thoroughly chastised by a Cambridge academic.
I’d used the phrase ‘learning delivery’ when describing computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) approaches. CSCL was one of the hot pedagogical approaches of the day – when network-based learning was in its relative infancy.
“Charles, my dear fellow”, said the Cambridge man, “we may deliver milk, but learning is something that is acquired, never delivered”.
Of course he was right. I’d been sloppy with language. What I’d meant by ‘learning delivery’ was ‘providing the resources and environments that help learning and, by inference, improved performance, to occur’. Learning takes place in our heads. We alone make it happen.
I guess the phrase I’d used was a shorthand. However, it was the last time I ever used it. It conveyed an inaccurate message.
… see the article here: http://charles-jennings.blogspot.ca/2017/05/the-knowledge-and-learning-transfer.html
… Exposure to other organisations’ experiences can also be very useful for our own organisation’s learning and development, but no two organisations are exactly the same. If we package up the acquired data, information and practices in one organisation it’s extremely unlikely that they can be simply unpacked and used as-is with the same effect in another, no matter how closely aligned the organisations might be. The ‘knowledge transfer’ model doesn’t even work between organisations in industries with relatively standardised process . What works for Mercedes is unlikely to work for Ford without quite a bit of thought and customisation. …