| « Planning for scale | Rapid Social Learning » |
Quite out of the blue this week, I received a comment on one of my posts, from Prof Laurie Thomas (if I've got the LinkedIn link to the wrong person, let me know!)
I wonder whether you have identified the source of the scientific term "Learning_Conversations"
If not let me point you towards our books - "Learning Conversations:- The Self-Organised Learning Way to Personal and Organisational Growth" Published by ROUTLEDGE 1991
"Self-Organised Learning:- Foundations of a Conversational Science for Psychology" 1985
and
"Learning to change" in the McGraw-Hill Training Series 1995 there are over 40 Ph.D theses in Brunel University Library which all contributed to the development of S-O-L and Learning Conversations. It seems a pity that you are unable to acknowledge this resource. Or if you do. We would welcome more explicit acknowledgement. Or find you own terminology, rather than debasing ours. Thank you!
I hadn't realised that Learning Conversations was a "scientific term", although it doesn't surprise me that someone's used it as a term to describe a process in an academic research context. Given that I don't have access to academic libraries, it's not surprising that I failed to pick this up...
I hope this post provides the explicit acknowledgment Prof. Thomas is looking for.
I also hope that my use of the term Learning Conversation as a website name, and in my ongoing discussion of the use of conversations to support learning, does not debase too much the work Prof. Thomas and his colleagues have carried out.
If anyone has a copy of the books referenced above, I'd be interested to read them. They appear to be out of print.
5 comments
I agree, it’s a bit rich to claim the phrase, particularly in such a haughty manner.
Thomas and his collaborator, Sheila Harri-Augstein, developed their ideas of “self-organised learning” at Brunel from the early ’80s. They drew on the Personal Construct Psychology of George Kelly (http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/personal.htm ) to develop a personalised curriculum for learners. It appealed to me chiefly because it was one of the few approaches to recognise a “learning trough” as part of the learners’ experience (they’re touched on at http://www.doceo.co.uk/original/learnloss_notes.htm ) However, as a pop-up note on the the first link indicates, I was not able to make it work.
Their work seems to have disappeared without trace. All I can find on ERIC is a trainers’ resource kit (1995, abstract at http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED410430 ) and an early 1977 report (http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED159594)
Hi James,
Thanks for the comment and the references. Really useful!
Mark
Debase /diˈbās/ - Reduce (something) in quality or value; degrade.
Hardly an accurate use of the term in this context. The current use on this site is not as a scientific term but as a descriptive phrase for a useful modern reference resource for learning professionals.
The allegedly debased content is both obscure and unobtainable. The simple coincidental use of these 2 words in the same sequence has resulted in a resurfacing of Prof Thomas efforts which I sincerely doubt would otherwise have happened.
All in all, instead of degrading [/diˈgrād/ - Treat or regard (someone) with contempt or disrespect] your site and contribution, I think he should be offering some constructive comment the site and asking politely if you would like a copy of one of the books to perhaps review in context of your knowledge and observation of todays organisational environment and technological trends.
Keep up the good work Mark. I may not post comment often but I’m here reading and reflecting.
@Gregor, thanks for the kind words.
I’ve been in contact with Prof. Thomas, and have discovered they have a website at: http://cshl.ac.uk/
Unfortunately, you’ll never find it other than via a direct link, as it’s completely hidden away from any search engines. I’ll do a review of it later, as there’s some useful content.
I hope you don’t mind if I use your phrase “a useful modern reference resource for learning professionals"?
Cheers,
Mark
Of course you can use it Mark. As long as you keep educating me ;)
