The ” dont know, dont know” space was talked of extensively by Eckart Tolle and Werner Erhart.

It’s where creating positive possibility counts.

Both educators. As is / was Chrishnamurti Snr. and the Dalai Lama.

However…….I’m chasing down what appears to be a new type of educator.

A band called ” Battles “.

Albums called ” Mirrored”.

Check out the drummers beats in the song called “ddiamondd”.

Seems we are on the verge of a new type of happy hardcore and it’s no longer a compelling ringtone.

I can’t imagine my working life (although that isn’t really a line I draw anymore) without LearnScope. Whilst, of late, I haven’t participated as much as usual in the conversations, I know the connections are still there. Its a driving force that I can contribute to, look upon, learn from and teach within. I don’t think I’d feel as courageous or supported, nor be using and enjoying creative and innovative tools, without LearnScope and the AFLF.

I agree with all you say and I’m sure the way some of John’s comments came across was not intended. However, any use of the terms “e-learning fanatics” needing to be “corralled” or bring “infatuated” or “getting all excited” indicates more than just an ill-informed outsider (which he isn’t btw).

WE’re very open to all opinions and he made many comments which needed to be said - although I thought stuff around being client/demand driven was a bit old hat. A good healthy debate around the topic is excellent, and I tried to extend that in my post last night. It’s a shame it seems to be a bit of a ‘drop your bundle and run’ episode.

I didn’t hear the interview, but having been involved in more than a few online and offline misunderstandings in my time, I wonder if it’s possible to assume that John might have said whatever he said with good intent?

Personally I understand how easy it is for the “PD” part of LearnScope to be outshone by the media used - bells and whistles are way more interesting and obvious to the casual observer. When I was a LS project officer, it was very difficult to rein in teams’ enthusiasm and remind them to focus on good teaching and learning practice - planning the action learning project, identifying organisational and learning goals, learning strategies, resources, evaluation methods and so on - rather than being bedazzled by the tools.

For instance, back then, almost everyone thought they had to learn HTML. So they did learn it. And we knew that it had almost nothing to do with what they really needed to learn but we often tolerated these sorts of tangents anyway (recognising the role of motivation and learner engagement and so on) and made sure that there was sound professional development design underpinning projects AS WELL (cos you couldn’t stop them anyway - HTML was king then). And of course now almost no-one feels a burning need to master HTML anymore (except perhaps people in teams who will actually be doing the coding) and instead now they’re “playing” with Twitter and so on, which DOES make it seem like everyone’s mucking around with toys. But they’re still learning heaps and I soon realised that the content of the learning almost became immaterial after awhile, because there’s no real way of learning anything tangible that will still be cutting edge 18 months from now, so it almost doesn’t matter whether they “play” or whatever - the “learning to learn” stuff, attitude shifts towards more confident adoption, influences on students and other staff in the organisation etc become the real sustainable practices.

This means that the professional development focus in LS can become invisible to people on the outside looking in, which is probably how it looks to John.

The other thing that I think has muddied the water (to this external observer at least) is the way the LS and Framework guidelines now specify a whole universe of requirements - the project will be timely, cost effective, targeted, exceedingly documented in triplicate, meet target group needs (*all* of them, it seems, and this list gets longer and longer each year), consult with and satisfy industry, show impact immediately, use toolboxes, provide public relations opportunities for the Framework, involve ex-Flexible Learning Leaders, make a mark at the highest reaches of the organisation, include technology x and g, showcase student work, be work-based, finish in less than 4 months and be no bigger than a breadbox. No wonder it’s difficult to cater to everyone’s expectations in one’s communications about the project - it’s a bloody wonder they get anything done at all!
So I start to wonder if John was being derogatory in the first place. My guess would be no and that it’s more likely that his words were taken out of context or misunderstood. And if not, he should be invited to have a look at LS 2007 so he can stand corrected if he’s mistaken about the PD focus or outcomes or whatever.

LearnScope has always been open to criticism and amenable to outside influence. Part of the key to this responsiveness and flexibility (in my opinion) is the devolved, cross-state/territory model of management and the inclusiveness of the program and implementation that allows the wisdom of many to grow a PD initiative that continues to be hugely popular with practitioners and has measureable impacts that go in all directions and in some cases are still rippling after 7 years. And that achievement has been carved by the various torrents of controversy since day one. So I reckon it’s all good.

I am not sure about systems or organisational culture but I do agree capability development and social sustainability happens in quiet corners, skype chats, twitter messages, links swapped between friends.

I think social sustainability of growing, learning and sharing for the common good of all as learners grows from the philosophies and practices of individuals involved as we see today in the Learnscope teams and projects.