Wiki contents


2019 Learning journals
2018 Learning journals
2015 Learning journals
2014 Learning journals
2013 Learning journals

Smartsims Support Centre

Blog updates

Recently Updated

Recent updates

Recently Updated

All updates

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

I have heard somewhere that it's a strength to know what you don't know.

Maybe knowing what you don't know can help you move into a blue ocean. Or maybe knowing what you need to know can help with building a strategy. Maybe by knowing what everyone else doesn't know, you can make better decisions based on competitive advantage. Maybe that's what real power is: knowing the unknown. Maybe if I can figure out what I don't know, then I can get better at writing learning journals.

The problem is that I don't know what the problem is. I don't know what I can do to get better at these journals, because I don't know what I don't know. 

Analysing the problem is going to involve some questions (I guess) so maybe I will reach a higher level of Blooms Taxonomy? Do I have to be smarter to know what I don't know? Because that's what these learning journals are about I think: about identifying something you don't know, and then showing that you now know it...properly know it. I don't know how to be smarter. I don't know how to work smarter, not harder in this course. Working hard has always been my method, tried and true. Not a brilliant method, but working hard it's a reliable method of working. I changed schools nine times and learned that anything can be achieved if you work hard. How does that apply here? It applies to my problem because I don't know how to find out what I don't know without working a whole lot harder. Why is that a problem? This is a problem because I only have so many hours in a week which I can allocate to this course so to do better, I need to work smarter. Maybe. Do I have to improve the quality of my thought? I don't know how to think deeper without using more time and therefore working harder. Do I need to learn in a different way? I don't know if this is the same as working smarter.

I don't know if I am asking the right questions. Should I ask five 'why's' to think more deeply? Why don't I know if my questions are correct? Why don't I know if my answers are correct? Why don't I understand how to ask the right questions? Why does asking the right questions more important than asking any questions? Why do I think that asking five why's in a row isn't helping me to understand what I don't know? Did my five why's just help me analyse my problem?

I don't know if I am making the right decisions. Do we ever know if we are making the right decisions? How can we ever know if we are making the right decisions if we can't trust that results are a product of good decision making? When can I trust my results? What difference do good decisions make if the outcome is the same? Can good decisions only be made if we know what bad decisions are? Is there even such thing as a good or bad decision? I don't know. Did I just think deeply? I could ask questions all day, but does this mean I am working smarter? Maybe it's true then, that being smarter means having more answers? Or maybe being smarter is not knowing the answers but deciding to act on the unknown because of what might happen. Everything that is tried and true sinks into the red sea so maybe it is true that there is no such thing as a good decision based on experience because any experience means the decision is made in the red sea right? So the best decisions are made when we don't know what might happen because it's not been done before. I don't know how this learning journal will be reviewed so maybe this is a good decision to jump into the blue ocean and identify a problem which doesn't relate to my mikesbikes team and doesn't relate to my role as CFO. 

So, what's my theory to explain the problem? There is too much to know and it is overwhelming. Maybe we don't need to know all the why's and how's be be successful. Maybe, it's about knowing which is the most important thing to know and accepting the rest of the unknown. Because after all, aren't we just out for the result? We don't really question the unknown so much when there's a success. Take the building you're sitting in right now for example. Have you ever questioned why it doesn't fall down on you right now? Would you question if it DID fall down on you right now? I suspect you would (if you could). So to apply this to my problem of not knowing what I don't know, it won't be such a problem if I am ultimately successful in this course, but I know it will be if I'm not.

What's my action from here? Well, at the moment I still don't know. When I get my feedback maybe then I will know if this journal was a success. Or maybe I will be told to have more referencing and citations again and I will know that I needed to have more referencing. I do know that I will continue to not know things throughout the rest of this course, and throughout the rest of my life, so I guess the measure of my success will be to take what I don't know and try to manage it, and find out enough to be successful. How much is that you ask? Well, I don't know.


  1. The main thing of which I have demonstrated learning is the importance of knowing your own limits and being able to build on knowledge selectively. Unclear what can be done that couldn't be 'done' before other than possibly having better information management practices and targetting relevant information rather than trying to understand or know everything in a course.

    I have followed Daudelins approach as is clearly labelled in each of the paragraphs. Each section of the four stage process is engaged in.

    The analysis level of Blooms taxonomy says: "A student is able to see patterns underlying content or deconstruct the critical components of a framework." I think this was demonstrated in the third 'analysing the problem' paragraph where I examined the underlying pattern of making the 'right' decisions in relation to the blue oceans reading. 

    Based on Blooms model, I could improve by moving into the 'Synthesis' stage, by contructing parts of the anaylsis into a new whole- could be done more clearly in the 'action' part of the learning journal.

    It's difficult to review yourself- particularly when this week I really went out on a limb and tried something new.

  2. Thank you for the opportunity to review your learning journal. The main thing of which you have demonstrated learning is¿.. questions! Heaps of questions! I like it though. It is potentially the most honest learning journal I have read so far. Questions are what lead you to finding answers. You are learning because you are thinking about things you would like to understand. Yes you have followed Daudeline¿s approach by reflecting on mistakes and experiences you have had. Try to apply some solutions to the problems/questions you have. The highest level of Bloom's taxonomy demonstrated in this journal is analysis. However, I believe you have failed to achieve application which comes before analysis, you need to apply what you have learnt. Basically just what I said. Learn to apply what you have learnt then go on to analyse what the effects of those actions are. At the moment you are analysing what you already know ¿. ¿You don¿t know what you are supposed to be doing¿ (most of us are in this boat.

    Thanks heaps for letting me comment on your work. As I said before it was a good read and I wish I could be this positive on my learning journal. Good luck