SeAMK[heart]learning

One wise woman once said, “You can’t decide that today I won’t learn.” Hand to heart, what I learned today: I take advantage of cultural segmentation in our Digiskills transformation, ponder the accessibility of .pdf files, and check out some videos from Wistec’s platform for a couple of minutes, and write this text, which is my stumbling block (I guess that’s why I write so little, practicing I’m sure I’ll get better). I’ve started sending messages to colleagues in Teams conversations, and I’ve already tried to communicate by means other than email, and I’m experimenting with how quickly I learn the policy that I only email with outsiders. We in Digiskills also want to increase transparency in learning processes, as no one is born a master. It’s easy to learn things in the style of “Pike is a fish”, but the trick lies in the application. Oh, was I happy with myself, when I found the email timer function, “delaying.”

Unstable and variable information requirements challenge even an expert

Another wise dude sometimes gave advice that learning something new is easier when you take advantage of the two-minute rule. After all, it’s the brains that go against the rake, so every day I do that new thing for two minutes to feed the brain the change impulse, and hooray, after a while, I find that the new thing has become routine. Isopahkala-Bourret’s vision of expertise as an experiential phenomenon combines knowledge, functional capacity and emotion. I know a thing, and I know how to act accordingly with confidence in myself. The most essential part of experimentalized expertise is the surrounding social context in which, in consultation, this expertise is rightly legibility and socially recognised (customers, work community). Expertise can be seen as continuous learning and a way of working, including a community perspective on decision-making and responsibility. Cultural meanings indicate how to act in a particular context, so that the assumptions attached to expertise are met. Expertise is therefore contextual. (Isopahkala-Bourret, U., 2008, 84–85). In any case, over time, tasks change and, with them, the requirements of the necessary information, so they are inevitably erred in nature and constantly changing (Schön, D.A., 1991, p. 15).

Relevance to studying and work along learning

That is it, hopefully we all have time to learn new things, to stop and think about what we could do better, and to experience the relevance of the work. The PDCA model related to quality of SeAMK is likely to work well on a personal level as well. I plan what I do, I implement the planned things, find out how I succeeded and develop the job further. It’s relatively difficult to develop yourself if you don’t get feedback (that’s why I’d love to hear what you thought of my text). The best part is reflecting in the top group, and I think triple-loop learning is a great concept, whether we did the “right” things and if we did, did we do them “right.” In our top group, we help others succeed, we are responsible, not only for our own, but also for others’ learning, we ask opinions of others and ask them for help, we discuss and let everyone say what they have to say, we participate in joint action and are active (Sarala, U. and Sarala, A., 2001, p. 142).

And if you’re not already a master, or even if you already are, join us. Let’s celebrate learning!

[From the publication series Digiskills – Rethink Work, Part 3 – Brainwork and learning]

Sini Karjalainen
Expert, RDI
SeAMK

The author is working as an expert on an ESF REACT-funded Developing and utilizing digital capabilities -project.

References:

Vuolio, V. (2/2021). Seinäjoen ammattikorkeakoulun laatujärjestelmä. Retrieved 17.11.2021 [restricted access] https://epedufi.sharepoint.com/:p:/r/sites/SeAMKInfo-/_layouts/15/Doc.aspx?sourcedoc=%7B2C9D30AA-68FC-40D0-BB92-8B92C1EDA864%7D&file=Laatuj%C3%A4rjestelm%C3%A42020_peruskuvaus.pptx&action=edit&mobileredirect=true&cid=1147b79e-fa47-4dcd-bdde-1bbfd597e948

Isopahkala-Bourret, U. (2008). Asiantuntijuus kokemuksena. Aikuiskasvatus, 28:2, 84–93.

Sarala, U. ja Sarala, A. (2001). Oppiva organisaatio – oppimisen, laadun ja tuottavuuden yhdistäminen. Helsingin yliopiston Tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskus Palmenia.

Schön, D. A. (1991). The Reflective Practitioner. How professionals think in action. Ashgate.