In the past two months since the announcement of the Invisible Learning project, we have received a tremendous response in Twitter and the blogosphere. (Interestingly, most of the discussion originates from Latin America and Spain — and less from the United States and Canada.)
Much of the recent conversation has been on defining what is invisible learning, and whether we need invisible learning in an already crowded ecosystem of ideas. For example, in a comment posted at Blog Nodes Ele, Juan M. Fernández wrote:
Están bien todas estas propuestas pero por momentos tengo la sensación de que están cayendo en una retórica autocomplaciente y poco práctica. ¿Dialogan entre ellas o prefieren ignorarse? ¿No ha llegado el momento de tomar alguna de estas propuestas y desarrollarla?
He is right. Nobody should get self-congratulatory about adding new ideas or terminologies to an already crowded ecology of conceptualizations. What I feel is important, however, is how we approach the interconnectedness and blending of many of the key ideas and concepts that, to a great extent, were isolated. This is why invisible learning is valuable:
Invisible learning includes not only non-formal and informal education, but also addresses the need to recognize, understand and leverage the essential meta space between non-formal/informal education and formal education. Moreover, as Cristóbal Cobo points out, invisible learning is also inclusive of new social and cultural interfaces within this new paradigm of learning (i.e., edupunk). This means that we do not need to rely on new technologies to teach old ideas, but rather we can fuel new learning by tapping into our inherent imagination, creativity and innovation capacities that thrive in invisible learning’s spectrum of possibilities.
Comments