According to Wikipedia, “learning society is an educational philosophy advocated by the OECD and UNESCO that positions education as the key to a nation’s economic development, and holds that education should extend beyond formal learning (based in traditional educational institutions – schools, universities etc.) into informal learning centers to support a knowledge economy (known as a “world education culture”)”.
The main characteristic of a learning society is the development of lifelong learning in response to the needs of a knowledge economy or in response to the needs of a knowledge society. The goal of the learning society is to improve employment, competitiveness and social cohesion.
- OECD. Knowledge Management in the Learning Society. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2000. 258 p.
- OECD. PISA 2015 draft collaborative problem solving framework. 2013.
- OECD. Students, Computers and Learning. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2015.
Равен (Competence in the Learning Society / под ред. J. Raven, J. Stephenson. New York: Peter Lang International Academic Publishers, 2001. 535 с.) анализирует понятие обучающееся общество опираясь на работы Хайека - о неполноте знания, о том, что знание распределено в обществе и никто не обладает и не может обладать всей полнотой знание и о том, что нет необходимости стремиться к тому, чтобы каждый видел всё поле. Рыночные отношения в сфере производства знаний, точно так же как они существуют и в других областях производства.
The whole acts as one market, not because any of its members survey the whole field, but because their limited individual fields of vision sufficiently overlap so that through many intermediaries the relevant information is communicated to all. The mere fact that there is one price for any commodity—or rather that local prices are connected in a manner determined by the cost of transport, etc.—brings about the solution which (it is just conceptually possible) might have been arrived at by one single mind possessing all the information which is in fact dispersed among all the people involved in the process.
- Hayek F.A. The Use of Knowledge in Society // American Economic Review. 1945. Т. 35. № 4. С. 519 – 530.
Learning Societies, Learning Organisations, and Learning: Their Implications For Competence, Its Development, and Its Assessment
Instead, it will be necessary for all citizens to become involved in participative forms of democracy in a network of monitoring groups having overlapping responsibilities and memberships to oversee the work of the public service. As previously mentioned, the function of the demos is not to govern, but to make apparent to everyone who did everything and in this way induce action in the public interest.
The system proposed by Smith and Hayek to handle this problem would itself stimulate experimentation, evaluate those experiments, learn, and promote evolution and development. This would come about as people voted with their pennies independently on a myriad of issues. People did not have to articulate the reasons for their behavior: they could vote on the basis of their feelings. They could buy products and invest in enterprises. Those who thought they knew better than others what their fellows needed could experiment, both individually and collectively. If other people liked what they did perhaps because it enabled them to satisfy their needs more fully or more efficiently the innovation would prosper. As developments built on each other, previously unimaginable developments would come about. There were endless possible connections and feedback loops. Numerous experiments would be initiated and fail. But the information available from "failed" experiments would not be lost. It would be picked up and used by others.
In sum, the proposal was for a messy, inefficient, organic, interconnected, and evolutionary learning and management system. Quintessentially, what was proposed was a means of empowering and handling information. Nothing could differ more sharply from the kind of arrangements with which bureaucrats tend to feel comfortable. The preference of bureaucrats is usually for tidy, efficient, systems. They want to know beforehand what is to be achieved and how it is to be achieved. They design tidy systems for translating the prescriptions of “authorities” who are often arrogant, powerhungry, selfstyled “wise men” (politicians) into reality.
One place we might look is in the literature dealing with learning organisations. But here we come up against a problem. Most of those who have written about learning organisations such as Senge (1990) have not got beyond recognising the importance of systems analysis. Without in any way wishing to minimise the importance of systems thinking, one has to say that their writings are dominated by an authoritarian mindset. They assume that someone some authority, some manager will be able to know all and make good decisions about what to do. If any one thing should have become clear so far in this chapter, it is that this is naïve. No one person, or small group of people, can be in possession of more than a fraction of the relevant information.
Learning (learning to work with others)
Having explored some of the meanings and implications of the words “learning society” and “learning organisation,” we turn now to the word “learning” itself. With the exception of its use to denote learning to read, to write, and to count, the word “learning” is generally used by educators to refer to learning content: to memorising a smattering of scientific truths and formulae, to learning the names of cities and the products for which they are famous, to memorising dates and famous battles, and to learning to decline irregular French verbs. The word is rarely used to refer to such things as learning to make one’s own observations; learning to lead; learning to work with others; learning to clarify one’s values; learning to invent; learning to initiate action, monitor its effects, and take corrective action; learning how to discover how organisations work; or learning how to influence them. One can learn to persuade, to put others at ease, to influence those above.
Having noted that societies and organisations can learn and develop without anyone having to know anything very much, one is forced to ponder whether people can learn and behave competently without knowing very much. And, of course, as Schön and others have demonstrated and again emphasise in the chapters that follow they both can and do. Indeed, very little competent behaviour depends on formal knowledge.
But there are more serious problems. Qualities such as the ability to make one’s own observations, the ability to understand and intervene in society, and initiative are all heavily valueladen. As a result, as soon as a teacher, for example, even encourages children to ask questions and make their own observations, he or she is confronted by parents who angrily insist that their children should be taught to sit still, do as they are told, and pass their examinations.
In developmental environments people can think about their organisations and their society and come to understand and perceive these institutions (and their operation) in new ways that have marked implications for their own behaviour. · are given (or can evolve) new concepts to help them to think about their behaviour, the world in general, and the consequences of alternatives.