When we examine our options for improving training or
educational instruction, we have many factors to consider. The breadth of
what we consider is dependent upon our own willingness to explore and learn.
Most often we know what we know, look over the fence of our boundaries,
see something new, and proclaim it the Holy Grail of learning. A teacher
who knows that technology is the devil ends up trying an email app that saves
her time and then she thinks email is the savior of all learning challenges.
A wearied corporate trainer, traveling cross-country to all branches,
feels he is the company's best chance at fervent and authentic instruction.
Then he creates a video of his best training and uses a learning
management system to administrate it to all employees, spending his saved-time
developing new training curriculum, and suddenly he sees the light. There
is a better way, and now he thinks learning management systems are better than
anything else.
In public education we have teachers and principals who are entrenched in their knowledge and slow to look over their fences. In Corporate America we have VPs of development who want to stick with what they know. Hey, it's natural. As humans we trust what we know and fear the unknown. (Some would argue we are this way because we were trained to think this way by our public school systems where informational bulimia is taught and exploration of the unknown is discouraged, but I digress.)
The real question we must answer is related to our developmental focus. When we are considering what to improve, what to change, what to keep, and how to go about any of this... we eventually find ourselves choosing between two options. Which is more important - the learner or the system? The easy answer is - both. But, that doesn't help us when we get down to decisions between competitive options. At some point the two paths will diverge and we must be more loyal to one or the other.
If we make the learner our focus we will have to make each and every learner's maximization our greatest intent, and that is very hard to do considering all the possibilities of learners and learning/development outcomes. If we make the system our top priority then we become slaves to what engineers say is possible, to what options are available, and we end up trying to fit learners into the limitations of the system.
The funny thing about systems is they are formed for a purpose. Gas pipelines and electric lines are extended through neighborhoods and to each house for a purpose. We didn't connect utilities to homes and then think of heaters and refrigerators. To educate people based on system capabilities is backwards. The only way to develop pertinent systems is to begin with the learner in mind and determine system needs from there.
In order to serve all learners, we do need a system. So, the learner-centric thinker must eventually realize that some learners will be failed without an adequate system, which puts the system into a high priority position again. When this happens it is easy to be consumed with thoughts about developing a system, but we must be constantly aware that the system is intended to serve the learners... all learners. So, if we are thinking about all learners we must think about systems, and if we are thinking about systems we must make them subject to the needs of all learners.
In other words, we need comprehensive thinking about system development, subject to the purposes of learner maximization, equal to all learners, and inclusive of continual system optimization. Whew. That's a handful, eh? But, can we really settle for anything less? Which learner deserves to be overlooked and under-served?
No comments:
Post a Comment