We have always known that knowledge decays if it not applied. Use it or lose it is the cliché we often hear. But the relentless march of technology means that knowledge decays faster, even when it is applied regularly. Systems, processes, tools and technologies are out of date almost before they are implemented. That’s why it’s essential above all to learn how to learn. Knowing how to gather and evaluate resources, and how to measure your progress are skills that adults must sharpen if they are to function in the modern world. Most professionals accept that the major portion of adult learning activity is initiated by learners themselves. And yet formal teaching and training and over-zealous control denies them involvement in the planning. Content and method is under the control of experts, designers, or teachers. Despite the feeding frenzy over tutorial-based eLearning, organisations still favour tutor-led approaches to learning.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
I think this is an issue that all of education needs to get its head around, how to support ongoing, personalized and rapid learning; and how to prepare students to be ready for it. I recently heard a caller’s story on a pbs radio show who lost a job and did what was recommended. He returned to school to a study computer programming language, only to graduate into a declining field with no jobs.
I think educational processes and their guiding frameworks are too linear with too little personalization. When an opportunity arises, people should be able to jump in and just make it happen. And when there’s no pressing opportunity, there should be an easy way to extend and update one’s background so your ready when the next opportunity does come your way. There is lots of open content available, it’s devising a framework to better support and organize it for folks. I’m thinking along the lines of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, helping people learn at the cutting edge of their own personalized ability level. That requires real personalization. Do you have an opinion?
I’ve been mulling over what you said, Howard. Personally when I moved from a career in Education to Training I was struck by the extent to which the System (at least the one I recognised in the UK) seemed to be over-burdened with norm-referenced testing, and standard deviations and all that good stuff. By contrast the world of Training was far more criterion-referenced and measured learning by what people accomplished rather than by what they knew. Of course this is a generalisation – there was and is still much tick-in-the-box training done. Schools were failing to prepare people for the realities of work – projects, collaboration and problem-solving. I don’t think much has changed. It seems as though independent, wide-ranging learning and collaborative construction are regarded as activity for slow learners whereas academically gifted kids experience the Nuremberg Funnel approach. There is much lipservice paid to Kolb’s learning cycle but I see not much evidence of time and encouragement for reflection and self-analysis.
Further thoughts on your remarks, Howard:
In the realms of online learning, many speak of individualised and modular learning. The claim is that if you provide a wide enough choice of learning media and resources, you’re bound to hit the mark. Although this may connect with individual style and preferences, it may fall short of satisfying needs. The problems lie in two areas, in my experience:
1) incompetent or over-engineered design of learning material
2) a reluctance to guide choice and mediate/moderate learning because informal learning is held up to be a paragon.
I should add that these are my own personal views, and other colleagues at onlignment may disagree – however we thrive on healthy debate.