Footprints of Emergence: Assessing Emergent Learning

Barbara: I very much agree with you. I think that most professions (and most disciplines for that matter) begin with a common core of knowledge, skills, values, techniques, and often vocabulary that are crucial in enabling practitioners to work together and helps increase the sum of human knowledge. Plain, old-fashioned rote learning is often the best way to begin, then the scaffolding experience that you so eloquently described takes shape as one listens, learns, and practices under experts' careful attention...then you become a practitioner yourself, a level where many people remain for their entire lives, doing useful but not especially creative work, but the person who becomes a master healer keeps reflecting, learning, trying new things, observing, bringing in ideas that may seem to come from "left field" ...but is always aware of the ongoing dictum..."first of all do no harm"...and occasionally circles back to basic principles to make sure s/he is on track.

I also liked your thoughts on the ways emerging learning is really about learning who you are (and who you are not) as a practitioner and how structured reflection as is often required in medicine and other helping professions can be useful in this process.

By the way, we seem to have shared a somewhat similar journey...although I started out as a mental health professional not as a medical person.

Re: Assessing Emergent Learning

by Phillip Rutherford - Wednesday, 1 December 2021, 9:44 PM

Joyce,

I think you make some very good points and with your indulgence would like to address two of them.

Regarding rote learning, neuroscience is now discovering that using the brain in a single, consistent manner (such as memorising and repeating facts in a repetitive way - eg, 'times table', movement of a limb) can increase one's neural flexibility. I know this is contrary to the position many teachers take on rote learning, but studies into neuroplasticity are revealing the positive aspects of this.

Regarding your comments about increasing the sum of human knowledge, I think that when we discuss emergent learning we cannot avoid discussing also the purpose of such learning - and that is to turn information into knowledge in order to better understand the world or various elements of it. My research and continuous observation suggests that there is three broad domains which span the continuum between the Kantian view of knowledge and that of Hegel.

At the Kantian end there are those who view knowledge as static and 'truth'. They adopt a long learning/feedback loop in order to bring together all of the information in a structured and stable way. They don't see knowledge as context-specific, more truth as its own argument, and give greater concentration to getting the information right. Their aim is for accuracy of knowledge.

At the other end are those who look at information in context in order to build a platform of knowledge from which to launch further discovery - often through trial and error. They apply a short or single learning/feedback loop and base decisions around limited input - sometimes no input whatsoever. They apply creative chaos to knowledge in order to keep it alive and dynamic, and by doing so reveal information which might not have otherwise been revealed. The ideal at this end of the continuum is to minimise risk and avoid errors.

In between the two are those who use information to make sense of either 'truth in itself' or 'truth in context', and apply medium learning/feedback loops in order to position their knowledge and understanding between the two poles. They are happiest questionning wisdom, not for its own sake but in order to better place it in either the Kantian or Hegelian camp. And having done so they apply knowledge gained at either end of the continuum to gain a better understanding (eg, applying creative chaos to 'single source of truth' in order to test this truth, or adopting a more corporate view of dynamic knowledge in order to slow down the rush of knowledge in order to determine usability.

The first group 'accepts truth', the second 'creates truth', while the third 'interprets truth'.

This continuum could also be seen as that which stretches between stability at one end and chaos at the other. In between is complexity, and learners could be anywhere along this continuum depending on whether or not they are clear on the information and its context. Moreover, any one of these could become a master in their chosen field but, as you state, this can only occur when the learner understand who he/she is and accepts their inherent and preferred way of dealing with information as it becomes knowledge and understanding.

Re: Assessing Emergent Learning

by Barbara Berry - Monday, 6 December 2021, 7:45 AM

Hi Joyce,

Yes, you are correct and we do share some common insights about emergence as a part of the development of both practical knowledge while undertaking work and that it must be continuous and intentional if it will amount to anything. For me there is a creative dimension in the sense that to interrogate practice one must be willing to delve for truth and this often takes another to listen, to ask questions and to work through the process of reflecting in and on action. Sometimes it happens when you least expect it, at other times, I have found this practice only when push comes to shove and one has to reflect for one reason or another.

My undergraduate degree is in Nursing and I worked in clinical practice (intenstive care, surgery and pediatric surgery) for a total of 6 years then in public health for another 5 followed by the emergence of my consulting practice after my graduate degree (still in the health sector).

Depending on the practice context, clinical reasoning in my experience takes place in association with the practice of dealing with the patient or client or family or community. It is a complex, reasoning process that entails inductive and deductive reasoning happening at the same time and sometimes very quickly in actue settings. What is interesting is that good clinical reasoning includes "critical thinking" and this includes rigorous habits such as analysis, inferential, evaluative, predictive, and explanatory thinking all in order to make sound clinical decisions in context. The intent is to resolve the particular clinical problem and treat/care for the patient/client as said with their safety uppermost in mind. Clinical reasoning is highly intentional processing and done by an individual and in certain situations by a team who "reason together". There is an "emergent" dimension to some situations in clinical practice where the patient's condition is in constant flux and responds based on judgements that are being made almost simultaneously. It can be a full-body experience in the sense that after all is said and done, a person can feel emotion, physical, cognitive and social exhastion. (no wonder I used to go home and collapse!). I am sure you have seen and or experienced this in your own professional work. I think that emergent learning (as I am learning about it in this seminar) can happen at the same time as clinical reasoning but how this all "happens" together and in fact how it might be similar to but different from clinical reasoning as I experienced it, I need to give more thought to! It has been years since I have "recalled" this kind of "work" and so, now I am once again curious : )

cheers,

Barb