I was working from a children's centre the other day, and observed two wonderful learning conversations between family workers discussing various approaches on how to support the families in their caseloads.
Both conversations both started with an explicit call for help - for new ideas. Both then involved the worker with the problem giving a succinct but descriptive account of the work they had done to date, what they were trying to do, and their understanding of the barrier they had come up against.
In both conversations, the other worker just listened, taking it all in, before finally probing with some questions to clarify certain areas. Then they started to suggest alternative strategies, or rather adjustments or additions to the current one.
How would I describe these conversations? Well, there certainly were elements similar to critical incident analysis; the level of detail for example. However, they were very informal, and I think this helped the flow. I think there was definitely learning from both partners, and the constructed solutions were definitely a collaborative effort. Knowledge was transformed and extended during the conversation. I also recognised the 'probe - sense - respond' type of complex decision-making in the Cynefin framework (Snowden, 1999), that Cormier (2012) references in his rhizomatic learning slide share that . The solutions defintely were 'emergent'.
The Cynefin Framework (below)
Perhaps I was most struck by how it was so natural to seek help, to learn from others around you in this way. I don't think I've seen it like this in any other workplace. But why? Has this been the result of enculturation, of 'learning to be' in this work, or to what extent does the job attract people for whom this is comfortable?
Links:
Cynefin Framework: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8
Dave Cormier Embracing Uncertainty – Rhizomatic Learning in Formal Education (2012). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJIWyiLyBpQ