Comments on: Is “Workflow Learning” a myth?

By: Rob Wilkins

Rob Wilkins — Thu, 03 Oct 2024 22:46:20 +0000

I’ve always gravitated to Connectivism (Siemens 2005) in todays societal information seeking behaviour and workplace information seeking behaviour. In connectivism the starting point for learning occurs when knowledge is actuated by learners connecting to and participating in a learning community. Learning communities are defined as “the clustering of similar areas of interest that allows for interaction, sharing, dialoguing and thinking
together” (Siemens, 2005).

This has always sat better for me in a workplace environment. I have questioned the concepts of learning in the flow of work in todays automated workplace. When computing was limited, I can see evidence that knowledge had to be actuated. It required reflection and in some cases, demonstration of competence. Workflow in todays workplace, requires expediency and outcomes. It does not provide for reflection. There would also be an argument that it should not cater for reflection. Enter Taylor, Fayol and Maslow discussion …… :)

The advent of AI will focus our attention on the work requiring reflection and learning as the “workflow” slowly becomes automated. Maybe constantly training AI will be where learning in the flow of work happens?

By: Wilfred Rubens

Wilfred Rubens — Thu, 26 Sep 2024 06:04:08 +0000

When it comes to learning, I use Schunk’s (2012) definition: learning is a lasting change in behaviour or in the ability to behave in a certain way, as a result of experiences. Learning is a complex cognitive and social process, which is difficult to ‘grasp’. This process involves action, feedback and reflection, among other things. I have also often argued that you should be cautious in stating that you also learn when you work (see, for example, here, here and here). Performing work does not automatically lead to new insights, knowledge or skills.On the contrary, new insights often arise thanks to reflection.
Often, employees perform routine tasks without consciously reflecting.

In this respect, I think it is useful to distinguish between ‘double loop learning’ and ‘single loop learning’. In ‘double loop learning’, you basically ask yourself: are we doing the right things, how am I going to do other things? ‘Single loop learning’ is mainly about: how am I going to do things differently? A problem of the workplace then is that you often cannot sufficiently distance yourself from certain processes and concepts. While this distance is important for arriving at new insights, and for ‘double loop learning’.

I do think that your interpretation of performance support is somewhat limited.I get the impression that you mainly focus on being able to process information just-in-time. While performance support also focuses on skills (e.g. by ‘copying’ behaviour). Furthermore, I do not exclude the possibility that performance support can also lead to a sustainable change in behaviour, and that this may involve reflection (but perhaps afterwards). This does involve learning.

By: Christopher Riesbeck

Christopher Riesbeck — Tue, 24 Sep 2024 22:33:51 +0000

I want to agree that “workflow leasrning” is an oxymoron for exactly the reason you give. Incorporating reflection is more post-workflow learning.

But what about apprenticeship? Isn’t that workflow learning? Doesn’t that suggest the kinds of learning events that are appropriate to consider still in the flow?

By: Chad Lowry

Chad Lowry — Tue, 24 Sep 2024 17:43:39 +0000

In my opinion, you’re right to raise the question of whether “learning” is a misnomer here, and what we should do about it. I wonder what would happen if we rephrased “workflow learning” and instead told the business that we’re going to enable “doing without remembering.” Would they care about the “not remembering” part, or would they instead focus on the fact that someone was able to do something, at however minimal or incomplete level? I fear it’s more likely the latter, which is why we should be clear when offering workflow learning about exactly what its limitations are, and what the likely business consequences and outcomes could be from trying to take this shortcut.

By: Harold Jarche

Harold Jarche — Tue, 24 Sep 2024 15:31:48 +0000

As Jay Cross noted many years ago, “Visualize the workflow of a physical job: produce, produce, produce, produce, produce, produce, produce, produce, produce.

Now visualize the workflow of a creative knowledge worker: nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, flash of brilliance, nothing, nothing, nothing.”

All that nothing time should be for reflection, not for meaningless busy work, or as David Graeber called them — bullshit jobs — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs